Atlas Forum

Election Archive => 2004 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: Dave Leip on November 12, 2003, 10:15:13 pm



Title: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Dave Leip on November 12, 2003, 10:15:13 pm
This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at  the 2004 Prediction page (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php).  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 13, 2003, 03:49:30 am
Dave, it may be a little too late to suggest changes in color-coding for your map repeating 2000 results, but I found the shades to red associated with >50  and >60 to be too similar.
Also since the difference between getting 50.16% (Washington) and getting 54.60% (Illinois)  in the last election makes all the difference with regard to predicting competitiveness in the next election, Might I suggest having more than one category for 50-60%?

As to the predictive maps, I myself plan to have four completely different colors
Solid Republican – Dark Blue
Lean Republican – Light Blue
Tossup  - White or gray
Lean Democrat – Light Red
Solid Democrat– Dark Red


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 13, 2003, 03:52:00 am
Well I seem to be obsessed with colors today. :)Darthkosh you seem to have mixed up Red and Blue states by assigning Red to the GOp and vice versa.

I was much shocked to see your map before I realised this :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 13, 2003, 04:50:24 am
Wow! The Dems pick up Utah and the GOP picks up Rhode Island ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 13, 2003, 10:37:09 am
Wow! The Dems pick up Utah and the GOP picks up Rhode Island ;)

I screwed up.  Just look at the ev cout for now and i will get around to changing it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 13, 2003, 10:37:40 am
Well I seem to be obsessed with colors today. :)Darthkosh you seem to have mixed up Red and Blue states by assigning Red to the GOp and vice versa.

I was much shocked to see your map before I realised this :D

I just relized I did that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 13, 2003, 01:53:07 pm
I fixed it and it looks like Bush won't win Rhode Island.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 15, 2003, 03:26:24 pm
Well people, I have some good news and bad news as regards my map. The bad news (perhaps good for some :) ) is that I feel unable to make my map with useful predictions as of right now.

The main reason is that the Democratic challenger is not yet known. My picks would vary considerably depending upon that factor. I feel uncomfortable deciding upon how states would turn based on a generic democratic candidate when I know full well that I would have to revise them next year. For Instance if Clark wins then Arkansas goes from Lean Rep to Lean Dem. The same applies to West Virginia if Gephardt is the candidate. If Dean wins a whole bunch of tossups become Lean Rep.  

Thus I am not going to put up a map with solid predictions yet. However since the others have taken so much effort on theirs; I feel compelled to make a contribution. I have put up a map detailing the margins of victory in 2000 for the most competitive states (in my opinion).  All other states I expect to remain in the same column as they were in 2000. I trust this will be of use to the others in their analysis. (Please refer to the color key on the right)

I am still in the process of completing my analysis. If I find that there are comparatively few states where it ALL depends on the Dem. nominee I will definitely put up my map in a week or so. Till then, have fun evryone :-)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on November 15, 2003, 08:05:57 pm
As of now my prediction is based on a scenario where Howard Dean is the Democratic candidate (due to him being the current front runner). However, should the tide turn in favour of another candidate I would change my prediction accordingly. But similar thoughts have definitely crossed my mind, Ryan. It's just that nothing's gonna stop me from taking part in a good ole prediction game. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 17, 2003, 11:29:27 am
Sorry I forgot to post this earlier. Its a really good electoral college calculator. I've found it very useful in my calculations and hope you will too :D

http://www.grayraven.com/ec/


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 17, 2003, 11:54:02 am
Well I've just posted my first prediction map. I can't say I put a lot of faith in it. :-) I haven't assumed a democratic nominee but have tried to consider a "generic" democrat.
Obviously a number of changes will occur in my map depending upon the candidate. For Instance if Clark wins then Arkansas goes from Lean Rep to Lean Dem. The same applies to West Virginia if Gephardt is the candidate. If Dean wins a whole bunch of states like Nevada become Lean Rep.

I'm not going to go too much into detail as to why I have assigned states the way I have but will be happy to field any specific queries.

Remember that the Confidence map is not my picks but is info put up for the benefit of everybody else. I have put up a map detailing the margins of victory in 2000 for the most competitive states. Except for one or two I consider them all to be competitive and not till a Dem nominee is selected can I definitely assign any to the D or R Column. All other states (in yellow) I expect to remain in the same column as they were in 2000. I trust this will be of use to the others in their analysis.

(Please remember to refer to the color key on the right)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 17, 2003, 01:17:38 pm
There's a better EV calculator on John Edward's website(!)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on November 19, 2003, 11:37:52 am
Yeah, I noticed that too. Well done Edwards, give the man the Presidency. ;D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 19, 2003, 02:05:38 pm
Yeah, I noticed that too. Well done Edwards, give the man the Presidency. ;D

LOL yeah he's leading in at least one respect. Btw as to EC calculators I genuinely find Dave's the simplest and easiest to use. I'd recommend it for your calculations. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on November 19, 2003, 07:38:21 pm
I'll have to agree, Dave's is the best and simpliest Electoral Vote calcuator to use.

 The most difficult to use?
-Grandma's hand-held solar powered pocket calculator, with only 16 buttons at best...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: MinnyBean on November 19, 2003, 09:32:18 pm
I submitted my predictions today for the 2004 presidential election.  I am looking forward to electing a Democratic candidate into office.  It is my prediction that whomever is nominated will be the next President.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 20, 2003, 01:06:37 pm
Including Sharpton ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Kevinstat on November 21, 2003, 09:16:33 pm
When looking at my prediction map, just imagine the Kentucky and Tennessee colors are reversed, with Kentucky being Bush >60% and Tennessee being Bush >50%.  I had meant to do have it that way originally but I guess my subconscience liked the north-south color difference line between Virginia and Kentucky on the one hand and North Carolina and Tenessee on the other.  I tried to correct it but forgot to give my password and so I decided to just post this disclaimer here.  I think I won't submit a new map until my predictions actually change.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on November 22, 2003, 10:01:29 am
Here is my oulook for 2004, which is based on the idea of a Dean/Clark ticket vs. Bush.

The Democrats will have a lock on three big states, which are NY, Illinois, and California.  Arkansas maybe on that list because the state tends to go for native sons.  Potential leaners are Washington, PA, Michagan, and much of New England.    

Confidence: 223 EV

The Republicans strongest states are Texas, Indiana, West Virginia, and Georgia.  They seem to have a lock on much of the West, except for Montana, which went to the Dems in 1992.  However, this was because of a strong 3rd party candidate.  
The deep South except for Louisiana and Florida are strongly Republican, and Virginia is a leaner.   Still, if there is a Dean/Clark candidacy then Bush will have a very tough fight ahead of him.

Confidence: 143 EV

Tossups are all over the place, especially in the Midwest, the South, and the Southwest.  In New England the questionable states are Maine and NH.  Oregon is also in this category, so is Nevada and Colorado.  But the biggest tossup states are OHIO and FLORIDA, which are usually swing states.  Clinton got Ohio in '92 and '96 and Bush got it in 2000.  Florida seems to go back and forth between parties.  Bush I got it 1992 and Clinton had it in 1996, and whether or not Bush junior got it in 2000 remains questionable.  I think if one candidate gets both Ohio and Florida then the election is theirs for the taking.   But I still think the election is going to be a very close one.

Confidence: 172 EV  
 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 22, 2003, 11:56:44 am
Um... did you just say that West Virginia is one of Bush's safest states???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 23, 2003, 09:24:22 am
Update on the predictions:

So far 16 forum members have made predictions and in general are predicting another close election:

Dem Average: 254 EV, Bush Average 284 EV

Indeed, 11 of the 16 predictions are for a close election similar to victories by Kennedy, Carter, Bush II, with <305 EV.

Just two predictions, both for Bush, are for a solid win of the scale seen by Clinton (>370 EV): Beet Juice 373, and htmldon 370.

Interestingly, there is only one landslide predictions of the scale seen by Reagan, Bush I, Nixon, Johnson (>400 EV): Bandit73 prediction of Dem 443

Assuming we actaully know what we are doing, it will be interesting to see if the average predictions steadily move towards the final result, or will the average fluctuate with recent news and poll reuslts?



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 23, 2003, 09:52:00 am
I think that it'll fluctuate a lot.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on November 23, 2003, 01:06:38 pm
Yes, I believe that West Virginia will be a Bush state in 2004 because of the Dems strong environmental agenda.  After all, WV is a major coal mining area.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 23, 2003, 03:37:39 pm
How much do you actually know about either WV or Miners?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 23, 2003, 03:52:38 pm
Yes, I believe that West Virginia will be a Bush state in 2004 because of the Dems strong environmental agenda.  After all, WV is a major coal mining area.

The reason Bush won WV in 2000 is because the Democrats have a strong environmental record!
The Clinton environmental policies severely affected the coal mining industry leading to mine shut downs, throwing people out of work, and a economic downturn.  
WV had the second biggest swing of any state from 1996 (Clinton by 15%) to Bush in 2000 (by 6%), a net 21% change.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on November 23, 2003, 06:19:26 pm
thanks a lot Zork, I could not have said it better myself.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 24, 2003, 02:55:25 am
I submitted my predictions today for the 2004 presidential election.  I am looking forward to electing a Democratic candidate into office.  It is my prediction that whomever is nominated will be the next President.

LOL I gotta say that I'm impressed that you submitted a reasonably non-partisan and neutral analysis inspite of your obviously strong views.
I had expected a copy of the 1964 map or something :P ;D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 24, 2003, 01:05:56 pm
2000 was a fluke. The Dems did very badly in Appalachia in 2000 due to:
a) Kyoto
b) "Modernisation"(which has got worse recently).
c) Guns

Look at recent results in Appalachia.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: timroman on November 24, 2003, 03:39:53 pm
I have to say, Dave's electoral college calculator is quite nice.  The only way to make it better would be to add a map that would show the results you choose...

The old one that I used (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/calculator.html) didn't have a map either.

TR


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 25, 2003, 03:28:29 pm
Although I am not a fan of Howard Dean, and i'm Britsih to boot, writing off his chances in the south is a dangerous trap. Disregarding his Condederate flag statement, he may tap into disgruntled southern voters both black and white if he plays his cards right. He is a supporter of gun ownership, which could appeal to many (Not that I am trying to make any assumptions of gun ownership based on state) A southern running mate would also help Dean. If he ran with Clarke, Arkansas would fall to the Democrats, not only because of Clarke, but because of an inbuilt Clinton-era political mechanism which could be put into effect. Louisiana is also a likely target state especially when looking at the recent gubernatorial race. I feel Florida, despite the closeness of 2000, is out of the Dems reach in 2004, as are Georgia and Tennessee. Kentucky could be persuaded and i wouldn't rule out North and South Carolina. North Carolina would be a target if John Edwards can make a good shot at the nomination or if he is selected as Dean's or any other candidates running mate. The 'high' war veteran concentration in South Carolina could also see this state as a close call if Wesley Clarke is involved, but it is likely to remain Republican. Gains in the south are needed by the Dems if they are in danger of loosing ground in northern states such as Oregon, Maine and Minnesota.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 25, 2003, 03:43:15 pm
NC's economic situation is looking bleak at present, and it'll get worse if the E.U imposes tariffs on textiles as revenge for the tariffs on steel.

SC is a Dem no no. SC gave Clinton under 40% in 1992(but, I hear you cry, so did FL. True but Perot ran well in FL) and is not going to go Dem until they rebuild in SC's northern counties.

Don't rule out GA, it's prone to sudden and unpredictible swings in opinion.
But because of the above don't predict a pick-up either.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 25, 2003, 09:24:01 pm
Illegal Aliens could decide 2004 Winner?
Interesting article  in National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/latest.asp#019982
Since Congressional seats are apportioned based on populaiton in a state, not citizens, CA illegal immigrants and non-rsident aliens result in about 6 addional EV for CA.  Should the Democrat win by a few EV, one could make the argument that those EV were due to the non-resident and illegal aliens in CA.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 26, 2003, 09:16:51 am
Realpolitik,
You and I have had this discussion before.  Forget the South.  The cultural divide between the national Democrats and southern whites is waaaay too huge.  You keep implying the possibility that somehow economic issues might trump cultural and social issues in the minds of Southern voters.  It has never happened before and is even less likely today when that cultural gap is larger than it has ever been.  I know you are not predicting a GOP loss in Virginia, Georgia, and NC, but the fact that you even mention it as a possibility tells me you severely underestimate the very conservative nature of the southern region of the country.  Believe me, nothing would delight me more than to have a Howard Dean take his core message to the South. in a general election.

I firmly believe there is a Liberal Democratic cacoon on both coasts whereby Democrats are so isolated from the rest of the country that they actually believe what plays in New York, Los Angelos, and Boston is not going  to bother the "folks" in Raleigh, NC.  They get this by constantly talking amongst themselves and having no exposure whatsoever to people in "flyover country".  They literally live in a cacoon.  It doesn't help their situation at all that the Democratic candidates are madly dashing even further to the left to capture the lefty activists that form the majority of Democratic primary voters.  That will get the nomination, but what good is the nomination if the nominee gets buried in the general election?

Read Zell Miller's book.  It will be an eye opener.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on November 26, 2003, 10:05:59 am
agcat,

agcat, read Al Franken's book. That's an eye-popper.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 26, 2003, 11:25:27 am
I'm afraid that's the kind of stuff Democrats are reading and buying into these days and there lies the Dems problem in a nutshell.   It may make them feel good and all of that, but it's no recipe for winning a general election.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a partisan and I admit it.  That's why I have no problem with liberals ceding the middle to the Republican Party.  Nominate Howard Dean.  Buy into Franken, Michael Moore. the hollywood left, the whole thing.  I'm just saying that you can't afford to run too far left or right if you want to win.

How far left has the Dem Party veered?  Well, case in point is Florida which was 50-50 in the last election.  Mason-Dixon released a poll yesterday showing none of the current Dem candidates within 20 points of Bush in Florida.  BTW, Mason-Dixon hit Florida right on in 2000 and was right on the button in the 2002 governor's race.  You are alienating a hell of a lot of swing voters when you go from 50-50 to 20 down.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on November 26, 2003, 12:27:42 pm
There's a better EV calculator on John Edward's website(!)
What is the web-address for Jonathan Edwards?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 26, 2003, 02:52:49 pm
There's a better EV calculator on John Edward's website(!)
What is the web-address for Jonathan Edwards?

www.edwards2004.org


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 26, 2003, 04:34:24 pm
Here's something to play with. Say that history was different. Say that for some unknown reason (however farfetched!) Carter defeats Reagan in 1980. Who would be up for election in 1984 and how would history have progessed presidentially since then? I have a feeling Mondale would have been up for election in 1984, after being veep for 8 years, what about the Republicans? What about 88? Let the imagination run riot!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on November 26, 2003, 04:53:34 pm
What is the web-address for Jonathan Edwards?
It's just John Edwards...just to let you know. Not Jonathan. The nickname for Jonathan is JON. John, per se, is a name. Nicknames for JOHN include, Johnny and Jack.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 27, 2003, 12:42:42 pm
Actually "John" is a shortend name. He was baptised as "Johnny".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 27, 2003, 03:05:11 pm
There's a better EV calculator on John Edward's website(!)
What is the web-address for Jonathan Edwards?

U can get the EV calculator itself on

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on November 27, 2003, 05:07:30 pm
Actually "John" is a shortend name. He was baptised as "Johnny".
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I looked it up and you're right. :) However, I knew his full name wasn't Jonathan.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mikeyc on November 27, 2003, 07:49:40 pm
Okay, I'm having a heapload of problems in uploading the gif files and I've spent enough time on it and in addition, how do you change colors, etc.?  Paint?  If so, just a TAD bit too much time.  So I'm just gonna say my predictions here:

Now, this is only assuming it'll be Bush vs. Dean.  If Clark gets it, Arkansas goes to lean Democrat.  To me, there's very little change from 2000.  Due to the fact I believe Democrats still don't hold a clear message, Bush looks like he'll recapture the election.  Even if Dean wins the Democratic nominee, we're literally seeing McGovern/Dukakis II.  America really don't want an extreme President, you gotta be near the middle.  With that being said.........

you can bet your bottom dollar these 8 states will be STRONG Democrat (come election day 2004, the Democrat contender will capture these states/district):  Vermont (even if Dean doesn't get it), Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York (even if the RNC is held in NYC and Bush gives the 9/11 "feel," I still think NY is gonna be strongly Democrat), New Jersey, Maryland, Washington DC (DUH?), Illinois, and California (even with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the helm, I still think California will be strongly Democrat).

likewise these are 21 STRONG Republican:  Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana (this one was kinda tough, almost lean Republican, but I'll go with strong), Ohio (I want to say tossup, but I'm actually gonna gonna go on a limb and say strong), Tennessee (likewise with Indiana), Alabama, Mississippi, the whole tornado alley really (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and duh Texas), Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado (same boat as Indiana but not only I think lean probably, but almost a tossup, but I'm gonna go with the gut feeling of strong), Utah, and Alaska.

true tossups in my eyes will be these 11 states:  Maine (and if I had to choose, I'd say lean Democrat), New Hampshire (I'm gonna go with gut and say lean Democrat), Pennsylvania (I'd say lean Republican if I had to choose), West Virginia (lean Democrat), Florida (I'm gonna go with slight Republican here, but it's still a tossup), Wisconsin (I'd lean slightly to the Republican side), Minnesota (this one can really go anywhere, hence a tossup, but I will play safe and say lean Republican), Iowa (lean Democrat), Nevada (this one is really tough....but I will go with gut and say lean Democrat), New Mexico (I'm gonna go for lean Republican here, this is my home state and I know we have a Democrat Governor, but I have this sense we're gonna vote Republican because we don't know Dean or Clark all too well), Oregon (this is a tough one, I WANT to say strong Democrat, but this one is a tossup)

the 3 lean Republican states are:  Missouri (although it's almost a tossup for me to be honest), Louisiana (same case for Missouri), Arizona (same case for Missouri),

I don't know lean or strong, but these will be Democrat states:  Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Washington, Hawai'i

I don't know lean or strong, but these will be Republican states:  Kentucky, Arkansas (again, this is if Dean captures it, Clark is a whole nother story)

I know my issues and reasonings for the way I chose each state by the way :-)

With that, I say Bush will win 307-231 (EV)

Breakdown percentages I see it like this (not including tossups, as these are just brute predictions):
Maine - >40% Democrat
New Hampshire - >40% Democrat
Vermont - >80% Democrat
Rhode Island - >80% Democrat
Connecticut - >50% Democrat
New York - >80% Democrat
New Jersey - >80% Democrat
Pennsylvania - >40% Republican
Delaware - >50% Democrat
Maryland - >70% Democrat
Washington DC - >80% Democrat
West Virginia - >40% Democrat
Virginia - >70% Republican
North Carolina - >80% Republican
South Carolina - >80% Republican
Georgia - >80% Republican
Florida - >40% Republican
Michigan - >40% Democrat
Ohio - >50% Republican
Indiana - >60% Republican
Kentucky - >40% Republican
Tennessee - >60% Republican
Alabama - >80% Republican
Mississippi - >80% Republican
Wisconsin - >40% Republican
Illinois - >80% Democrat
Minnesota - >40% Republican
Iowa - >40% Democrat
Missouri - >40% Republican
Arkansas - >40% Republican
Louisiana - >40% Republican
North Dakota - >80% Republican
South Dakota - >80% Republican
Nebraska - >80% Republican
Kansas - >80% Republican
Oklahoma - >80% Republican
Texas - >80% Republican
Montana - >80% Republican
Idaho - >80% Republican
Wyoming - >80% Republican
Colorado - >60% Republican
Utah - >80% Republican
Nevada - >40% Democrat
New Mexico - >40% Republican
Arizona - >40% Republican
Washington - >50% Democrat
Oregon - >40% Democrat
California - >60% Democrat
Alaska - >80% Republican
Hawai'i - >50% Democrat

I welcome any response(s) - I'll try my best and check this site every now and then.  

my 2008 predictions are in the appropriate forum.  Check it out *soon*


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 27, 2003, 09:58:04 pm
I think you just about nailed it state by state.  I can't really can't see a state that I'd argue much with - percentages are about right I'd say.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on November 28, 2003, 12:13:14 am
How far left has the Dem Party veered?  Well, case in point is Florida which was 50-50 in the last election.  Mason-Dixon released a poll yesterday showing none of the current Dem candidates within 20 points of Bush in Florida.  BTW, Mason-Dixon hit Florida right on in 2000 and was right on the button in the 2002 governor's race.  You are alienating a hell of a lot of swing voters when you go from 50-50 to 20 down.

If what you say is true, Lieberman is not within 20 points of Bush in Florida either, so how can the problem be that Democrats are too far left as you say?

Also I wouldn't categorize the entire West and Northeast as a "cocoon", they are the most populated regions in the country, and together are more populated than the South and Plains states. If Republicans can win elections, It's because the Northeast elects a lot of moderate Republicans (like Olympia Snowe) and because they have an advantage in the swing region, the Midwest right now, probably due to Bush's personal windfall from 9/11 and the feel-good (but troubled) war.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 28, 2003, 03:54:27 am
Mikey welcome aboard, I too am much impressed with your analysis. :)
Got kinda Deja Vu feeling when I read ur state by state analysis :D

A couple of questions:

- Why is Hawaii not in the definite Strong Dem column??

- For that matter how about Connecticut, Delaware?? I realise they COULD go GOP but only in a landslide and in that case, a couple more from the Strong Dem column would join them.

- In my opinion Kentucky works the other way around for the GOP. Its safe except for a landslide.

- Why is La. and not Tenn. a GOP lean??

that's enough for starters :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 28, 2003, 04:00:46 am
Okay, I'm having a heapload of problems in uploading the gif files and I've spent enough time on it and in addition, how do you change colors, etc.?  Paint?  If so, just a TAD bit too much time.

Lol we've all had our share. There is another forum thread for technical issues with predictions. Post a run-down of ur probs there and the big guy (Dave) will help ya out.
As for the coloring in paint taking time; what feature are you using? Mine took five minutes using the "fill with color" feature. I'd recommend that. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on November 28, 2003, 03:26:35 pm
Actually, I think a lot of your percentages are way off Mikey. You have a lot of states going more than 80% for one candidate or the other, and almost certainly neither candidate will get over 80% of the vote in any state except for the Democrats in the District of Columbia. The last time any candidate topped 80% of the vote in any of the 50 states was Johnson in Rhode Island and Goldwater in Mississippi in 1964, and likewise Bush would have to win a landslide of equal proportions to Johnson's to even have a chance at 80% of the vote anywhere (Utah or Wyoming the most likely possibilities).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 29, 2003, 09:04:07 am
Yes... I was wondering about that...
I just can't see the GOP winning 80% in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia etc...

Or the Dems winning 80% in Illinois, New York, New Jersey etc...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on November 29, 2003, 02:26:07 pm
Bush will Carry the Same States as he did in 2000 but Pick Up Iowa & Minn


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 29, 2003, 03:36:55 pm
Well I cant be certain about this and mikey will no doubt clarify it but I think the percentages are CHANCES OF A PARTY WINNING the states altogether not their actual percentages there.

If you look at it from that angle most of them make sense. You guys shoulda thought of that :-) Why would somebody who had preceded it by such a reasonable analysis predict such wacky percentages????


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on November 29, 2003, 05:26:15 pm
I thought of that possibility too, but then why would he have some states going >40% Democrat or Republican? They sure look like actual predictions of percentages to me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on November 29, 2003, 08:33:27 pm
I'll graph my predictions when I get a chance, but here are my detailed predictions. This assumes no earth-shattering events between now and Nov. '04 and the Dems nominating either Dean or Gephardt and a competitive race.

Solid Dem: VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, CA, WA, HI, IL

Solid GOP: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, ID, MT, WY, UT, AK, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, LA, IN

Lean Dem:

Maine
New Mexico (Gore won barely in '00 and a Hispanic Dem was solidly elected Governor--should be able to turn out Hispanics on election day)
Pennsylvania (more competitive if Dean is the nominee)
Michigan (ditto for MI)

Lean GOP:

Colorado
Tennessee
Florida (it'll be very close, but I must sadly say it leans GOP due to increased GOP registration and a solid win for Jeb Bush in 2002)
Nevada (a bit more competitive due to Yucca Mountain and an increasing Hispanic population)
Arizona (though more Democratic than in '00)

Tossup:

NH: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
MO: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
IA: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
WV: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
AR: Lean GOP, though highly competitive if Clark gets VP
OH: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
MN: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
WI: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
OR: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep

I figured Dean would overperform in states Nader did well in in 2000 (MN, WI, OR) and Gephardt would do well in his home state and in states with a high union population (MI, OH, PA, WV).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mikeyc on November 30, 2003, 03:30:56 am
no doubt - I doubt any state will allow a candidate capture 80%+ of the vote.  That's why I hate predicting brute numbers.  All I'm gonna say it's either lean or strong, so hence:

Maine:  lean Dem
New Hampshire:  lean Dem
Vermont:  strong Dem
Massachusetts:  strong Dem
Rhode Island:  strong Dem
Connecticut:  lean Dem
New York:  strong Dem
New Jersey:  strong Dem
Pennsylvania:  lean Rep
Delaware:  lean Dem
Maryland:  strong Dem
Washington DC:  strong Dem
West Virginia:  lean Dem
Virginia:  strong Rep
North Carolina:  strong Rep
South Carolina:  strong Rep
Georgia:  strong Rep
Florida:  lean Rep
Michigan:  lean Dem
Ohio:  lean Rep
Indiana:  strong Rep
Kentucky:  lean Rep
Tennessee:  lean Rep
Alabama:  strong Rep
Mississippi:  strong Rep
Wisconsin:  lean Rep
Illinois:  strong Dem
Minnesota:  lean Rep
Iowa:  lean Dem
Missouri:  lean Rep
Arkansas:  lean Rep
Louisiana:  lean Rep
tornado alley:  strong Rep (don't feel like typing each damn state :-)
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah:  strong Rep
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona:  lean Rep
Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California:  lean Dem
Alaska:  strong Rep
Hawai'i:  lean Dem


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 30, 2003, 06:09:20 am
Tennessee is going to be close(again) and is certainly going to be worth a watch.
I'm curious as wether or the interesting voting patterns displayed in the state in the 2002 gubernatorial election will be repeated.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 30, 2003, 07:34:07 am
At the Presidential level?  Not a chance.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 30, 2003, 12:29:24 pm
Nice analysis. A question. Why is Washington state in solid Democrat??

I'll graph my predictions when I get a chance, but here are my detailed predictions. This assumes no earth-shattering events between now and Nov. '04 and the Dems nominating either Dean or Gephardt and a competitive race.

Solid Dem: VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, CA, WA, HI, IL

Solid GOP: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, ID, MT, WY, UT, AK, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, LA, IN

Lean Dem:

Maine
New Mexico (Gore won barely in '00 and a Hispanic Dem was solidly elected Governor--should be able to turn out Hispanics on election day)
Pennsylvania (more competitive if Dean is the nominee)
Michigan (ditto for MI)

Lean GOP:

Colorado
Tennessee
Florida (it'll be very close, but I must sadly say it leans GOP due to increased GOP registration and a solid win for Jeb Bush in 2002)
Nevada (a bit more competitive due to Yucca Mountain and an increasing Hispanic population)
Arizona (though more Democratic than in '00)

Tossup:

NH: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
MO: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
IA: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
WV: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
AR: Lean GOP, though highly competitive if Clark gets VP
OH: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
MN: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
WI: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
OR: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep

I figured Dean would overperform in states Nader did well in in 2000 (MN, WI, OR) and Gephardt would do well in his home state and in states with a high union population (MI, OH, PA, WV).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 30, 2003, 12:34:59 pm
Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California:  lean Dem
Hawai'i:  lean Dem

All good except for California and Hawaii.............lean Dem?????


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 30, 2003, 02:23:58 pm
Tennessee is going to be close(again) and is certainly going to be worth a watch.
I'm curious as wether or the interesting voting patterns displayed in the state in the 2002 gubernatorial election will be repeated.

The Rep gov was unpopular and it affect the race.  I believe Tenn will not be all that close.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on November 30, 2003, 02:41:10 pm
One interesting thing about Hawaii over the years is that it has had a strong tendency to favor incumbent Presidents. In years in which there has been an incumbent Republican (1972, 1976, 1984, 1992) Hawaii was actually not much (if any) more Democratic than the national average, but when there has been an open race or a Democratic incumbent, it votes much more Democratic (especially when there is a Dem incumbent, as in 1964, 1980, and 1996). It will be interesting to see whether this trend continues, but if it does, than Hawaii could reasonably be expected to be only in the lean Dem column.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 30, 2003, 02:55:54 pm
Tennesse is almost always very close and has been since the Civil War ended(although lots of people in Eastern Tennesse still seem to belive that a Democrat-Confederate government rules TN from Richmond, VA and that Abe' Lincon's troops have yet to reach them... but enough of that)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mikeyc on November 30, 2003, 04:47:08 pm
Ryan:  both California and Hawai'i (only my predictions) are gonna be lean Democrat unlike strong because of Arnold Schwarzenegger and recent Republican gubernatorial grabs in Hawai'i.  Just "hunches."  In addition, Hawai'i has a history of voting for the "right guy" (i.e. the winner of elections), but they've been Democrat for quite a few years now.  Again, a hunch...I can't see a DEVASTATING Democrat victory in either state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 30, 2003, 06:32:41 pm
No northern Democrat has carried Tenn since '48 (border state Truman from Mo.).  The last 4 northern dems have gotten killed - Humphrey 68 actually finished 3rd in that election.  McGovern lost by 38.  Mondale lost by 18.  Dukakis lost by 16.  

Dean has as much chance of making Tenn competitive as Bush has of making a run in Massachusetts.  It aint gonna happen in either case.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on December 01, 2003, 09:41:49 am
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  
 
As for Congressional races I wouldn’t expect much change the Democrats will lose in Georgia for sure however Florida and North Carolina will be more competitive. In the North Dean’s troopers and the Union’s will be beating on doors and galvanising the apathetic to vote for Democratic candidates while in the South the GOP will run riot effectively cancelling each other out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 01, 2003, 11:17:23 am
No northern Democrat has carried Tenn since '48 (border state Truman from Mo.).  The last 4 northern dems have gotten killed - Humphrey 68 actually finished 3rd in that election.  McGovern lost by 38.  Mondale lost by 18.  Dukakis lost by 16.  

Dean has as much chance of making Tenn competitive as Bush has of making a run in Massachusetts.  It aint gonna happen in either case.

1968 is a bad example and you know it.
But the Dems have yet to choose their candidate anyway.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on December 01, 2003, 02:24:15 pm
The Election will be Deacied by the People with 53% to Bush & Dean 45%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 01, 2003, 02:52:01 pm
The Election will be Deacied by the People with 53% to Bush & Dean 45%

Bush 54%
Dean 45%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on December 01, 2003, 02:55:37 pm
Well Yeah but the most I could say about either state is that the Democratic margin will be smaller than in 2000 (unless, as I have repeatedly mentioned, its a landslide year either way)

The recent gubernatorial elections signify a better organized state party which can turn out their base and that means a larger republican vote but not near a majority in either case.

Arnold and Lingle run as LOCAL republicans and actually almost as Independents. A LOT of their voters would never consider voting for Bush- Just like I keep assuring people that the recent Dem victory in La. does not mean even a marginal change at the national level. The antipathy towards the national democratic party is as strong as ever. Same for these states. If we are looking at a reasonably close election, they should be solid democrat.

And if at all I agree to change that I might change California because of a huge uncommitted if left-tending independent electorate who could TECHNICALLY vote GOP. Hawaii has a much stronger democratic base.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Hawaii's record as a bell-weather. 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 later that decade.  



Ryan:  both California and Hawai'i (only my predictions) are gonna be lean Democrat unlike strong because of Arnold Schwarzenegger and recent Republican gubernatorial grabs in Hawai'i.  Just "hunches."  In addition, Hawai'i has a history of voting for the "right guy" (i.e. the winner of elections), but they've been Democrat for quite a few years now.  Again, a hunch...I can't see a DEVASTATING Democrat victory in either state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 01, 2003, 03:56:48 pm
Well Yeah but the most I could say about either state is that the Democratic margin will be smaller than in 2000 (unless, as I have repeatedly mentioned, its a landslide year either way)

The recent gubernatorial elections signify a better organized state party which can turn out their base and that means a larger republican vote but not near a majority in either case.

Arnold and Lingle run as LOCAL republicans and actually almost as Independents. A LOT of their voters would never consider voting for Bush- Just like I keep assuring people that the recent Dem victory in La. does not mean even a marginal change at the national level. The antipathy towards the national democratic party is as strong as ever. Same for these states. If we are looking at a reasonably close election, they should be solid democrat.

And if at all I agree to change that I might change California because of a huge uncommitted if left-tending independent electorate who could TECHNICALLY vote GOP. Hawaii has a much stronger democratic base.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Hawaii's record as a bell-weather. 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 later that decade.  



Ryan:  both California and Hawai'i (only my predictions) are gonna be lean Democrat unlike strong because of Arnold Schwarzenegger and recent Republican gubernatorial grabs in Hawai'i.  Just "hunches."  In addition, Hawai'i has a history of voting for the "right guy" (i.e. the winner of elections), but they've been Democrat for quite a few years now.  Again, a hunch...I can't see a DEVASTATING Democrat victory in either state.

Like i saind in the wrong govenors thread.  Local Politics.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 01, 2003, 04:48:44 pm
But a dean north vs Bush South = + Bush/GOp for Senate races.


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  
 
As for Congressional races I wouldn’t expect much change the Democrats will lose in Georgia for sure however Florida and North Carolina will be more competitive. In the North Dean’s troopers and the Union’s will be beating on doors and galvanising the apathetic to vote for Democratic candidates while in the South the GOP will run riot effectively cancelling each other out.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 01, 2003, 05:49:20 pm
The Election will be Deacied by the People with 53% to Bush & Dean 45%

Bush 54%
Dean 45%

It just keeps going up doesn't it?!
Allow me to boost the numbers.

Bush: 56%
Dean: 43%



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 01, 2003, 07:09:26 pm
<1968 is a bad example and you know it>

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

You are right, Dean hasn't been nominated yet.  However, you can substitute Kerry's name, Gephart, whoever....Northern liberals get squashed in the South.  Good grief.  If Gore gets beat by 4% and it's his state, what do you think will happen to Dean and company.

I keep telling you.  Forget the South.  No amount of wishful thinking is going to change the fact that there is no historical trend pointing to a competitive race in Tennessee between Bush and this bunch.  None whatsoever.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on December 01, 2003, 07:55:00 pm
Nice analysis. A question. Why is Washington state in solid Democrat??

I'll graph my predictions when I get a chance, but here are my detailed predictions. This assumes no earth-shattering events between now and Nov. '04 and the Dems nominating either Dean or Gephardt and a competitive race.

Solid Dem: VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, CA, WA, HI, IL

Solid GOP: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, ID, MT, WY, UT, AK, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, LA, IN

Lean Dem:

Maine
New Mexico (Gore won barely in '00 and a Hispanic Dem was solidly elected Governor--should be able to turn out Hispanics on election day)
Pennsylvania (more competitive if Dean is the nominee)
Michigan (ditto for MI)

Lean GOP:

Colorado
Tennessee
Florida (it'll be very close, but I must sadly say it leans GOP due to increased GOP registration and a solid win for Jeb Bush in 2002)
Nevada (a bit more competitive due to Yucca Mountain and an increasing Hispanic population)
Arizona (though more Democratic than in '00)

Tossup:

NH: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
MO: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
IA: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
WV: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
AR: Lean GOP, though highly competitive if Clark gets VP
OH: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
MN: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
WI: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
OR: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep

I figured Dean would overperform in states Nader did well in in 2000 (MN, WI, OR) and Gephardt would do well in his home state and in states with a high union population (MI, OH, PA, WV).

Regarding Washington state:

I was on the fence between putting it in Solid or Lean Dem. I decided to put it in Solid Dem because of an increasing minority population and the fact that after '94 Dems have won both 2/2 pres. races, 2/2 gov. races, 2/2 senate races, and have picked up 4 House seats. But again, it could go either way.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 01, 2003, 08:57:51 pm
I believe that the only Sputhern states that the Dems have a chance at are Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee.  

Arkansas may go to the Dems if Clark is on the ticket and Florida was a dead heat in 2000, so there is a chance.  

Tennessee could go to the Dems if Clark is on the ticket and if the Democratic nominee does not press the gun issue too much.  Al Gore kept talking about Columbine and he ended up losing his home state to Bush.  

The Dems could also get Louisiana, Clinton had it in 1992 and 1996 but now it is in my tossup category because Gore lost it by 130,000 votes.    

Oh, and Happy Holidays to all.    



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 01, 2003, 08:58:55 pm
Sorry about the typeo in the first sentence it should be "Southern"  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on December 02, 2003, 02:29:10 am
There is a modify option which you can use. Comes in handy :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 02, 2003, 04:27:28 am
Quote
Not a bad example at all.  I don't know where you get that.  It is entirely reflective of  the weakness of every other Northern lib Dem running in Tenn since then.  As a matter of fact, 68  was CLOSE compared to elections since.  McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis got drubbed worse.

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


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 02, 2003, 08:03:13 am
For many Southern whites who had never until then voted for a Republican, Wallace was a temporary way station in their migration from the national Democratic Party.  By 72, those Southern whites had gone all the way over to the Republicans.  It is interesting that Nixon's 72 vote almost exactly equaled the sum of the 68 Nixon plus Wallace percentages in southern state after state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 02, 2003, 08:44:58 am
Not true... in the Upper South areas that went for Wallace in '68 now usually go Dem, and in the Deep South... well most of the Deep South went VERY strongly for Goldwater in '64...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 02, 2003, 12:41:58 pm
Don't forget, the main reason why the Deep South went to Goldwater in 1964 was Johnson signing the Civil Rights acts earlier in the year.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 02, 2003, 06:00:57 pm
I thought the civil rights acts were signed in 1965, that is the ones you always hear about.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 02, 2003, 06:58:15 pm
That was the Voting Rights Act that you are thinking of that was passed in 1965. The main Civil Rights bill was passed in 1964.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 02, 2003, 10:07:54 pm
In 64 the Civil Rights Bill was pushed thru Congess by Johnson.  Whites in the deep South responded by voting against Johnson and for Goldwater who had voted against it in the Senate.

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

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

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


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on December 02, 2003, 11:55:08 pm
The national Democratic party has only moved to the left if you assume that Dean will win the nomination as well as total control of the party. Not all of the "9 guys" are really so far to the left. Obviously there is Lieberman, if he is so far to the left that he would "get buried" in the South, the South is truly finished as a competitive electoral region, and future elections will be decided in the Midwest and West. Gephardt, Edwards, and Clark are all very moderate; supporting the war is at right-wing if not moderate position.

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


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 03, 2003, 12:26:44 am
Actually Goldwater won Louisiana in 1964.
Also, I don't think that Clark would lose Arkansas if he were nominated.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 03, 2003, 12:40:31 am
Also, I don't think that Clark would lose Arkansas if he were nominated.
Neither do I. Arkansas isn't THAT Republican. It is one of the few southern states that could very well go Democratic. Gore could have even carried Arkansas, as well as his home state of Tennessee, if he didn't distant himself so much from President Clinton.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 03, 2003, 01:09:25 am
AR is not that republican but it is a socially conservative state.

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

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

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


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 03, 2003, 08:23:50 am
<Gephardt, Edwards, and Clark are all VERY moderate>

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

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 03, 2003, 03:17:10 pm
Is That A Smile, Andy? President Bush's Baghdad sojourn seems to have worked perfectly in one regard: his poll numbers jumped across the board in the days following the secret trip, the National Annenberg Election Survey has found.

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



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lt. Gov. Immy on December 03, 2003, 07:30:55 pm
I just added my map today.  It's nothing special, just the 2000 results with NH, WV, and NV switiching to the Ds.  I assumed Dean would be the nominee, but I'm personally pulling for Gephardt.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 03, 2003, 11:23:43 pm
And the same poll shows that by a 51-41 margin people feel things are on the wrong track rather than the right direction.
And another poll shows the generic Dem nominee beating Bush 48-42.
The polls are all over the place right now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 04, 2003, 12:05:10 am
Is That A Smile, Andy? President Bush's Baghdad sojourn seems to have worked perfectly in one regard: his poll numbers jumped across the board in the days following the secret trip, the National Annenberg Election Survey has found.

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


 

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





Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 04, 2003, 10:17:13 am
Well got the report from CBS and that polling group has been used many times in the past.  It showed Bush's numbers when down at 52 and now on the up swing, with the improving economy; signing of Medicare Bill, and trip to Iraq to see the troops.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 04, 2003, 01:07:48 pm
Indeed, it did. And as I pointed out, the same poll still has a majority saying that things are on the wrong track. So I guess the question is which way will people vote who approve of Bush's performance but feel that things are on the wrong track?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WONK on December 04, 2003, 05:08:54 pm
CBS PARTISAN???   NO WAY!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 04, 2003, 05:11:19 pm
I know that would be very hard to believe, but it MAY be true :)


CBS PARTISAN???   NO WAY!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 04, 2003, 05:16:16 pm
I don't see any evidence to suggest that they are, or at the very least to suggest that they would put media bias over ratings and thus advertising revenue. The media are businesses like any other and ratings are number 1 priority to them, with any political bias clearly being less important...you have to do that to stay in business.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Flying Dog on December 04, 2003, 09:37:52 pm
I assumed Dean would be the nominee, but I'm personally pulling for Gephardt.
Your not alone im pulling for gephardt to. But dont give up hope dean is not the nomminee just yet


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 05, 2003, 01:10:51 am
The kkey is IA, if Gep wins there it could even be a convention nomination with Dean/Kerry in NH, and Edwards/Clark and dare I say sharpton in SC ( 12% and 2d in latest poll, got to mention him I GUESS, sigh) and Lieberman, Clark etc in other Feb 3 contests.

It could be wide open after Feb 3

OR Dean sweeps and it is over.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on December 05, 2003, 09:22:31 am
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 05, 2003, 06:42:03 pm
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41
Shut up! You always say Dean will win. And you give nothing to back it up. If you're going to say Dean will win, thats fine. But I notice you spread this in all the threads, as if Dean is already nominated. Explain yourself, and I won't be so mean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 06, 2003, 04:02:53 am
I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on December 06, 2003, 01:25:22 pm
Let the People Chose who they want in the White House in November 4 2004 i want Bush but if dose win thats fine too


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 06, 2003, 02:07:56 pm
Let the People Chose who they want in the White House in November 4 2004 i want Bush but if dose win thats fine too
You seem very ambivalent. If you want Bush to win, you should definitely care if he loses. However, with ambivalence comes acceptance. You're willing to accept whatever happens, and that’s good.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 07, 2003, 12:41:55 pm
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41
Shut up! You always say Dean will win. And you give nothing to back it up. If you're going to say Dean will win, thats fine. But I notice you spread this in all the threads, as if Dean is already nominated. Explain yourself, and I won't be so mean.

Dean has the support of major unions and the ultra left.  The will help him win the nom.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 07, 2003, 06:26:58 pm
Dean will win the nomination and go down in November something like 54 - 46.  Pretty substantial win considering we are a 50 - 50 nation.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 08, 2003, 10:38:22 am
I'd say I've seen analysists predict the black turnout in SC could be as high as 49%


I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 08, 2003, 11:34:40 am
I'd say I've seen analysists predict the black turnout in SC could be as high as 49%


I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.

Biggest Dem voting block in SC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Dave Leip on December 08, 2003, 09:05:04 pm
There is a new "deluxe" version of the electoral college calculator in the 2004 section.  This includes a dynamic bar graph and a map generator. As I mention in the Weblog entry, the state-polygons are currently quite rough and will be refined in due time.
Enjoy,
Dave


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 08, 2003, 09:13:44 pm
I applaud your Deluxe Version of the Electoral Vote calculator, Dave. But, it’s weird how the states of Michigan, Hawaii, and Alaska are so....”abstract”. lol ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on December 12, 2003, 10:19:00 pm
Update Forum Predicitons:
We now have a total of 68 2004 Predicitions and  the average is 270 for Bush and 268 for the Dem.  This shows a *tightening* of the race since Dec 1 when the average prediction was 282 for Bush.  However, the average masks a continuing divergence of predicitons, with a range from Bush 459 to Bush only 137.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on December 12, 2003, 11:10:04 pm
I'll throw in a prediction of my own.  This one is for a race between Bush and Dean.  I think that Bush will manage to retain every state that he won in 2000.  In, addition, he will pick up Minnisota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maine and perhapesd Washinton and Michigan.  My feeling is that even with Arnold, there won't be a Republican gain in California.  However, Arnold's presence and stumping for Bush will, I predict cause a rise in Bush's numbers in that, state, at least for a while, causing the Democrats to spend money their and considering thier already streached resources after a hard fought primary, that's something that will become a nessesary evil for them (if you recall, Gore didn't spend a dime in California in 2000).  So Bush will be able to pick up several states that he lost in 2000, even against a Dick Gephart or Joe Liebermann, let alone Howard Dean.

Bush won't carry California, but in the end, it will make a big difference in the election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Cairo_East on December 13, 2003, 05:41:04 pm
IMO, all but 12 states are tossup at this stage.  There is just too much that can happen in 11 months.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 13, 2003, 07:48:23 pm
IMO, all but 12 states are tossup at this stage.  There is just too much that can happen in 11 months.

Maybe ten are toossups.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 13, 2003, 08:11:10 pm
Lets see:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico,, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin could go either way in 2004.  27 states.

Bush best case scenario: 512-26 win
Dean best case scenario: 368-170 win

So there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 13, 2003, 11:03:03 pm
encouraging to see wide poll with Bush ahead in NH.  Not all defining this early, but with Dean close by state wise and him leading by big numbers there and Dems pounding the airwaves all year, nice to see BUSH still way ahead.

I eventually think NH will come off the tossup board and go for GOP as NH is so anti-tax and won't stomach Dean's tax proposals.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 14, 2003, 02:02:09 am
Greetings from the Empire State:

Well, things are heating up in this presidential campaign, and Gore endorsing Dean puts him in a very good position.  But its still early and anything could happen.   Some of my political friends think that with this endorsement, Dean may clinch the nomination, however I think they maybe jumping the gun a little.  

Personally, I am excited about the possibility of a Dean - Clark ticket, or vice versa.  If these two are on the same ticket then the Dems have the best shot at winning the White House.  The Dems still need to realize that they need Southern Electoral Votes in order to win the election.    

See you all later.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 14, 2003, 05:48:33 am
Dean is reported to be obsessed with the South


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 14, 2003, 09:14:25 am
Dean is reported to be obsessed with the South

Let him be.  He is not going to win it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on December 14, 2003, 08:05:00 pm
He should really concentrate on holding onto the Gore states. But by reaching out to the South, although he won't win it, he may just make himself moderate enough to win votes in the battleground states in the Midwest and West.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 14, 2003, 08:35:08 pm
He should really concentrate on holding onto the Gore states. But by reaching out to the South, although he won't win it, he may just make himself moderate enough to win votes in the battleground states in the Midwest and West.

By reaching into the unwinable for Dean he open himself to loose the close Gore states or more.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 14, 2003, 11:28:39 pm
Bring on DEAn, esp after today!  

That is if the Dems don't dump him now too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 15, 2003, 09:16:04 am
Bring on DEAn, esp after today!  

That is if the Dems don't dump him now too.

They  won't dump him they love him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 15, 2003, 04:35:14 pm
Yep but so do we :); just different reasons.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 15, 2003, 05:04:47 pm
Yep but so do we :); just different reasons.



True.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on December 15, 2003, 09:27:54 pm
Approximate tally of Bush against Dems with the following platforms:

Bush is a good guy. I respect the War on Terror, believe in it, and will continue it. Tax cuts are god too. Still, I disagree with the Medicare reform bill as it currently stands.

Bayh: 55%
Bush: 45%

Bush has mismanaged the war which I support in principle. Repeal the tax cuts!

Lieberman: 52%
Bush: 48%

Give peace a chance! No war! Ever! I don't care how many Americans they blow upo, they're victims of society, and they have a different moral system! Long live Al Qaedaaaaaaaaaaa!

Bush 53%
Dean 47%

More taxes! We need more money so we can build more bureaucracy so we will need more money so we will build more bureaucracy so we will need more.....

Bush 55%
Dean 45%

The sky is orange. In the middle of the day. Really. I'm serious. Vote for me.

Bush: 57%
Dean 43%

Boing!
Bush: 60%
Rubber Ball: 40%

Just so you know what we're up against. There are so many interests that just HAVE to vote dem, the slightest bit of sense on there part would carry the day.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Dave Leip on December 16, 2003, 10:04:12 pm
I have compiled a (dynamic - it will evolve) user prediction map for the 2004 election from the over 100 user-submissions thus-far.  There are two ways of compiling the data:  The state map is compiled from the median winning candidate / percentage for each state.  The overall total from these data are added. A second method is to take the median of the total electoral vote from the predictions.  Both of these results are shown on the Prediction 2004 summary page.

Interestingly, not much change is predicted from 2000... only WV (as of this writing) changes from Bush > 50% to Bush > 40%.

Dave


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 17, 2003, 08:03:20 am
Approximate tally of Bush against Dems with the following platforms:

Bush is a good guy. I respect the War on Terror, believe in it, and will continue it. Tax cuts are god too. Still, I disagree with the Medicare reform bill as it currently stands.

Bayh: 55%
Bush: 45%

Bush has mismanaged the war which I support in principle. Repeal the tax cuts!

Lieberman: 52%
Bush: 48%

Give peace a chance! No war! Ever! I don't care how many Americans they blow upo, they're victims of society, and they have a different moral system! Long live Al Qaedaaaaaaaaaaa!

Bush 53%
Dean 47%

More taxes! We need more money so we can build more bureaucracy so we will need more money so we will build more bureaucracy so we will need more.....

Bush 55%
Dean 45%

The sky is orange. In the middle of the day. Really. I'm serious. Vote for me.

Bush: 57%
Dean 43%

Boing!
Bush: 60%
Rubber Ball: 40%

Just so you know what we're up against. There are so many interests that just HAVE to vote dem, the slightest bit of sense on there part would carry the day.
If anyone was at loss for a definition of a rant, you now are not.
Long live al-qaeda line?  Not funny.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 17, 2003, 09:35:32 am

Interestingly, not much change is predicted from 2000... only WV (as of this writing) changes from Bush > 50% to Bush > 40%.

Dave

I think that may be because the 2000 election is treated as if it was permanant by a lot of people on the internet...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on December 17, 2003, 11:08:09 pm
I did not ascribe those words or even thoughts to Dean, you will notice. Just posted it as a hypothetical platform. What would I be ranting about, anyway?

Yeah, 2000 election has been given too much importance in terms of permanent trends. Next years map will look very, very different. Mwa ha ha ha ha!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 18, 2003, 04:44:28 am
...or because GOP posters have been posting big GOP wins while Dem posters have been posting big Dem wins with their being a few more GOP posters than Dems posters...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 18, 2003, 09:06:01 am
...or because GOP posters have been posting big GOP wins while Dem posters have been posting big Dem wins with their being a few more GOP posters than Dems posters...

Maybe or maybe not.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 18, 2003, 10:30:01 am
I haven't seen any Democrats say that there will be a big Dem win in the EC.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on December 18, 2003, 12:21:09 pm
No. Most democrats predicting a victory see it as a repeat of Bush-Gore, with a few more states swinging dem. GOPers are much more likely to predict huge win, or even (as I do) a landslide.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 18, 2003, 01:10:52 pm
No. Most democrats predicting a victory see it as a repeat of Bush-Gore, with a few more states swinging dem. GOPers are much more likely to predict huge win, or even (as I do) a landslide.

With Dean as the nom it will be a big win for Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 18, 2003, 03:23:17 pm
What happend to being objective?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 18, 2003, 07:03:33 pm
Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on December 19, 2003, 01:11:28 am
Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.
Bush carry Pennsylvania? After lifting the foreign steel tariffs? That would be quite an accomplishment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 19, 2003, 08:17:10 am
Quite an accomplishment?  Against Howard Dean?  Hardly.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 19, 2003, 10:16:45 am
Wonderful technical changes, it is all so easy now!!

I have added my prediction, which is based on the assumption that the race gets close. If it doesn't there is no real point in making predictions; Bush wins and there is nothing to it. If the race gets close the reasonable swing states, which a party might lose from the last election, would be: Dems: Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Oregon, Reps: Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and West Virginia. (You all know why so I won't go into that).

This gives the following number of vulnerable EVs: Dems 39, Reps 35. Considering that the Dems are 18 EVs down to begin with there isn't much to hope for. Some of you would probably like to put Lousiana, Arkansas and Florida among the weak states. The two latter I've made lean states, but local politics are irrelevant.

Comments are welcome!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 19, 2003, 10:52:32 am
PA Polls out this week have Bush over 50% vs everyone and 49% vs Dean.  

So yes Bush can still Carry PA , it was very close in 2000 and without PA, Dems are done.


Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.
Bush carry Pennsylvania? After lifting the foreign steel tariffs? That would be quite an accomplishment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 01:44:03 pm
I still think that Dean will not get the turnout from the middle Gore gotten.

PA Polls out this week have Bush over 50% vs everyone and 49% vs Dean.  

So yes Bush can still Carry PA , it was very close in 2000 and without PA, Dems are done.


Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.
Bush carry Pennsylvania? After lifting the foreign steel tariffs? That would be quite an accomplishment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on December 19, 2003, 01:46:42 pm
People will chose who they want to put States in the bush Side or Democarts Side


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 01:50:39 pm
People will chose who they want to put States in the bush Side or Democarts Side


Who said they wouldn't?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on December 19, 2003, 01:53:14 pm
Wait, I think I just gt a joke by John! See, if the emocRAts are democARts, then you put states in them like in a grocery store.... or.... something....

Maybe Limberman means that he's physically fit, ie fiscally fit! Ha ha, good one, John. And Shapapatron sounds techno, maybe that is an ironic jab at Sharpton's modernity, ie, really he's a throwback to the past. And Swwager souds like a sucking noise, meaing he's pulling the California center away from dems. Hey, John is pretty funny! Anyone want to have a go at interpreting some of his other jokes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 19, 2003, 01:55:46 pm
Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 01:56:59 pm
Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

Anybody can make a joke whenever they want in here.  It's not against the rules.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 19, 2003, 02:00:28 pm
I'm not against making jokes. I just doubt that someone would dedicate a lot of time to joining a forum wih making jokes as the only purpose. That is fine by me, I love jokes, I just wouldn't have that as my only activity in a serious forum.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: English on December 19, 2003, 05:22:55 pm
I find it hard to believe John has a problem spelling, it is far too contrived! I mean Joe Limberman?!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 08:57:37 pm
I find it hard to believe John has a problem spelling, it is far too contrived! I mean Joe Limberman?!

It is possible that Joe was a gymnist.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 19, 2003, 11:08:53 pm
Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 11:53:22 pm
Because with our electiuons we will rule the world.

Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 20, 2003, 04:46:23 am
Because with our electiuons we will rule the world.

Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

America is more important than most European states. Also, it is a matter on national ego. Americans have a tradition of not caring and not knowing about anything else besided their own country, living in their own little world, which occurs in most big states (China, France, Japan, the UK, etc). This works because you are big enough. It wouldn't work for Swedes since we live in a so small country!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 20, 2003, 08:00:27 am
Because with our electiuons we will rule the world.

Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

America is more important than most European states. Also, it is a matter on national ego. Americans have a tradition of not caring and not knowing about anything else besided their own country, living in their own little world, which occurs in most big states (China, France, Japan, the UK, etc). This works because you are big enough. It wouldn't work for Swedes since we live in a so small country!

Unlike Europe, America is practically an island that is why we only care about us.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 20, 2003, 10:27:00 am
Is this the ghost of G.P.Nye?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 20, 2003, 12:00:36 pm
As a citizen of the UK, the 2004 election is importnant to me because the USA has a lot of influence. Decisions made by Bush for instance on the US economy, rebound not only on Wall Street but in London too. From my albeit limited experience, most Brits prefer the Democratic candidate, regardless of whether they are Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters themselves. The British public hate incompitent, 'folksy' politicians usually, so there was a strong dislike of George Bush even before the events of Iraq. I can remember most people I talked to thought highly of Clinton and wanted Gore to win in 2000. While I supported Bush's stance on Iraq (more to do with Tony Blair's assurances rather than Bush's), I hope he is defeated in 2004.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 21, 2003, 01:20:59 am
Humm I have some British friends too and they want Bush to win to keep the strong relationship with Blair.

REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 21, 2003, 02:27:34 am
Humm I have some British friends too and they want Bush to win to keep the strong relationship with Blair.

REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH!

Well, that depends on if Blair can get re-elected himself.

And they always say that you become friends with people who are most like you. So OF COURSE your British friends want Bush to win again....they are REPUBLICANS like you! (or think like a Republican anyway) lol ;D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 21, 2003, 05:25:39 am
Blair won't have any trouble getting re-elected.
Trust me on this.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 21, 2003, 10:32:43 am
Yes, you are right. Blair is a shoe-in come 2005/6. Blair does have a strong working relationship with Bush, but ideologically they clash. Blair and Clinton saw eye to eye on far more things than Blair and Bush do, and I would imagine that if a Democrat is elected in 2004, they will have just as strong a relationship. I have a sneaking suspicion that Blair wouldn't mind if Bush lost...as long as it's not to Dean!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 21, 2003, 10:54:04 am
Agreed, although I doubt he would have any serious problems with Dean.
Kuchinich on the other hand...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 21, 2003, 01:11:25 pm
No, some are some aren't I have lotso f friend son both sides of the aisle and across political spectrum across the world.


Humm I have some British friends too and they want Bush to win to keep the strong relationship with Blair.

REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH!

Well, that depends on if Blair can get re-elected himself.

And they always say that you become friends with people who are most like you. So OF COURSE your British friends want Bush to win again....they are REPUBLICANS like you! (or think like a Republican anyway) lol ;D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: English on December 22, 2003, 07:19:11 am
Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

As a British citizen I am concerned what happens in the US, since it has a large impact on the UK. America catches a cold, the world sneezes, as the saying goes. For this reason I would prefer a Democrat to win the 2004 election. Democrats I believe are less isolationist, more internationalist and generally foster better international relations. This has to be a good thing. This is probably why pretty much all foreigners would prefer to see Dean in the white house than Bush. Bush just doesn't cut it with me. He comes across as a bit of a hick, no offense intended. He is more of a hunting, gun-toting, Bubba than an international statesmen. As someone said earlier this makes the British feel very uneasy! The vast majority of Britons distrust or have negative opinions of Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 22, 2003, 09:20:32 am
I agree that most Europeans would prefer Dean.  

Dean would carry western Europe handily.  Perhaps Howie needs to move to France and run for something.  He'll get slaughtered here.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: English on December 22, 2003, 10:30:21 am
No, the French wouldn't elect an American come hell or high water, no matter how liberal!! He'd probably be right at home in the 'wet' wing (i.e liberal wing), of the Tory party. Even Dean isn't left enough for the Lib Dems or Labour, but I could easily see him being elected in Chipping Barnet :-)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 22, 2003, 11:22:31 am
No, the French wouldn't elect an American come hell or high water, no matter how liberal!! He'd probably be right at home in the 'wet' wing (i.e liberal wing), of the Tory party. Even Dean isn't left enough for the Lib Dems or Labour, but I could easily see him being elected in Chipping Barnet :-)

Most people in Sweden think, quite rightly, that the Democrats pretty much correponds with the Swedish right, whereas the Republicans are off the edge! It can be seen, for example, that the Swedish left, left of centre, centre, right of centre and right hate Bush. The "conservative", or rather libertarian, right is split on whether to hate him or not.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 22, 2003, 12:05:37 pm
Although it has to be noted that the Swedish "right" would be considered as leftish is most other countries!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 22, 2003, 02:44:26 pm
Although it has to be noted that the Swedish "right" would be considered as leftish is most other countries!

Well, yeah, I suppose so...
Though, we have liberals (European ones), we just don't have any conservatives. Still, to cut taxes to, say, Finnish levels of 43% of GDP is seen as madly radical in Sweden, so I guess you are right.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on December 23, 2003, 08:22:03 pm
Pennsylvania...I think will stay democratic.

Pennsylvania is basically a 3 region state.

The Southeast which consists of Philly and its burbs has been trending democratic and probably will continue to do so for the forseeable future. Southeastern PA is more like the Northeast as a whole...even the Republicans which usually have 49/51% of suburban registration (democrats still don't break the 40% mark there yet) are pretty liberal-the democrats in the city or the burbs go without saying. These republicans or the regionites as a whole probably will go for someone like Dean or Clark in the plus 60% range. Sad to say, but its true, and its the fastest growing part of the state.

The central PA...carville called it Alabama...very republican, very conservative...Bush should carry the T of pennsylvania easily...just a matter if its in the high 50%s or low 60%s.

But Bush's waffling on tariffs (which in my view should never have been implemented in the first place, but I'm from the SE anyway) will likely cost him the West of the state, where the GOP had been making large inroads...and making up the loses it had incurred back east. Now that Bush has removed the tariffs, he's likely to alienate voters in that area...probably costing him the state--then again, the state had been trending democratic since nov 2002 anyway with a democratic governor whose sure to use his weight to tip the state to the Ds anyway.

The bigger problem is not Pennsylvania, Bush doesn't have to win PA...its West Virginia, a state thats probably going to be hit the hardest by no more tariffs and has a strong democratic registration edge. Coupled with Ohio (Republicans haven't won the white house without it). Bush could be in serious trouble in the former steel belt.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 23, 2003, 08:34:43 pm
Not against a Howard Dean type.  Ohio stays comfortably Republican.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 24, 2003, 04:20:55 am
I agree with bullmoose's analysis of PA(one question: do you think that any House members might be threatend by the steel tariffs? And another: why is the strong GOP area in the centre of PA called the "T"? It looks more like a "Z")

Bush would struggle to keep WV anyway("No child behind" f***** up WV budget), but the Tariff's could be a killer for him there.

Ohio is a more conservative state than PA or WV, but it was close last time and a GOP congressman has said it's a tossup so I suppose it is.

Another state that the Tariffs issue could hurt Bush in is Arkansas(seriously!), but he's probably givin AR up already.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 24, 2003, 10:51:33 am
Why would bush give up arkansas, he won it last time.  Plus it is socially conservative state like Bush, and Dean will definately not play well there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 24, 2003, 04:24:01 pm
If I were Dem strategists, I'd worry more about defending states such as Wisconsin, Oregon, Iowa, and New Mexico where Gore scraped by with 1/2 of one percent or less.  Might even worry about Minn where the margin was a slender 2%.  There's a much greater chance that these states switch sides than for Arkansas (won by Bush by 6%) changing hands.

Realpolitik is once again completely discounting the cultural conservatism of the red states.  Howard Dean won't come within 15 points of carryinjg Arkansas.  I suspect he's in for a disappointment when it comes to West Virginia as well.  People in these two states are no more going to turn national security over to Howard Dean than a man in the moon.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on December 24, 2003, 08:03:17 pm
I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on December 24, 2003, 08:10:49 pm
I always thought it looked more like an "I" (with large top and a large bottom)[although the bottom runs into Pittsburgh and suburban Philly and some of those counties can go democratic so its more accurate to call it a T-the entire stateline with New York goes Republican, Erie county on occasion as well)

PA politics is confusing at times. In national elections for president, the SE has voted for the more liberal (socially) candidate as long as he doesn't talk about borrowing and spending (fiscally moderate or even conservative) the West is the opposite. So in congressional elections (especially now that the GOP has drawn the districts to favor them) the East votes for Moderate, fiscally conservative republicans [free traders] or similarly positioned democrats [you don't get a liberal democrat outside the city for congressional races] while out west the republicans and democrats tend to be protectionist, socially conservative candidates.

Thats why the SE where the counties around philly are very republican, yet vote for Clinton and Gore into the 60% range while the west is predominantly democratic around Pittsburgh and Erie yet has been voting Republican as of late. So I doubt congressional candidates will be hurt since they likely share the views of their consituents. Bush however, (who was supposed to be a free trade guy) might get hurt out west.


Just a hunch though...11 months is still pretty early to predict.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 24, 2003, 08:43:53 pm
Arkansas and Louisiana will vote for a northern liberal when pigs fly.  It's not going to be easy for Dean to try to slide to the center after he's run hard left for months before and during the primaries.  Also, Bush has 170 million during the primary season to define Dean as the leftist he is.  Think of all that beautiful footage the Bush campaign will have of Dean playing to the left base during all those Democratic debates.  They will run it in their ads over and over and over.......


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The love that set me free on December 25, 2003, 11:32:20 pm
you all are really underestimating Dean. He's hardly some ultra-liberal, and is really much more like Clinton than anything else. He's even to the right of Kerry and probably even Clark. What type of ultraliberal has an A rating from the NRA? Calling him an Al-qaeda sympathizer is just ridiculous, and incredibly immature.

anyway, I don't think Minnesota will go to Bush. Whle Gore did win it by only about 2%, Nader took around 5%. He won't get that much this time. If he runs again, he'll make very little of an impact due to the far left just wanting Bush out. I'd say his run would be more comparable to Buchanan's last year.

anyway, the breakdown of Minnesota. First you have the Twin Cities. These are solidly Democratic and Bush doesn't have a prayer of making it anywhere in here. However Nader got 10% in Minneapolis. Like I said before, that won't happen this time. So it means more solidly Democratic votes. Then there's the northwest. While this area is fairly socially conservative, it is still one of the most solidly Democratic regions of the country. Gore got over 60% in Duluth and even did well in the outer surrounding parts of it. This is actually the most solidly Democratic part of the state, since Humphrey won it over Jesse Ventura, while Ventura won the Twin Cities. If it comes close to a Republican, it's due to gun issues, since it's a big hunting region. A pro-gun Democrat like Dean is unbeatable here. He'll get at least 55% here, and over 60% in the Twin Cities.

Then there's the south where I live. This is a pretty diverse region. Some towns like Albert Lea are traditionally Democratic and remain it. Others like Rochester are pretty Republican. There are lots of college towns here (including where I live and go to school). The district here narrowly went to Bush due to the large influence of the western part and Rochester, but it can be won. Neutralizing the gun issue will also help big time.

The Twin Cities suburbs range from how inward they are, the innermost being very Democratic to the outer ones being solidly Republican. However the ones where the majority of the population lives are a socially liberal/fiscally conservative bunch. Bush won most of these places by narrow margins, but with his far right social record to attack him on, and a fiscally conservative Democrat like Dean against him, it could tilt Democratic.

Then there's the west. While not as solidly Republican as the Dakotas, it is still pretty Republican. Bush will still do fine here. However I don't think it'll be enough. As for Minnesota having a Republican governor, that won't help. He's pretty unpopular, and isn't liked by anyone besides the Republican base, the 44% who elected.

And Pennsylvania will also stay Democratic. After all Rendell won in a landslide and he was the mayor of an ultra liberal city following a popular Republican governor. If he can do it, a governor of a rural state like Dean sure can.

I'm trying to put up my map, but my comp keeps screwing up when I submit it. I'll keep trying though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 06:34:47 am
Nader only won 5% in MN last time because of LaDuke, who seems to be popular in the North of the state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 06:40:24 am
I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.

The Democrats won over 60% of the vote in WV in the last congressional election.
Every single elected state-wide official in WV has a little D next to his/her name.

The Republicans have a machine in Arkansas outside the Ozarks?
Huckabee is the only popular Republican in the state... and his popularity is waning.
TN is going to close(as always. Amazing what a bit of good ol' fashioned sectional voting can do...)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 06:47:44 am
I always thought it looked more like an "I" (with large top and a large bottom)[although the bottom runs into Pittsburgh and suburban Philly and some of those counties can go democratic so its more accurate to call it a T-the entire stateline with New York goes Republican, Erie county on occasion as well)

PA politics is confusing at times. In national elections for president, the SE has voted for the more liberal (socially) candidate as long as he doesn't talk about borrowing and spending (fiscally moderate or even conservative) the West is the opposite. So in congressional elections (especially now that the GOP has drawn the districts to favor them) the East votes for Moderate, fiscally conservative republicans [free traders] or similarly positioned democrats [you don't get a liberal democrat outside the city for congressional races] while out west the republicans and democrats tend to be protectionist, socially conservative candidates.

Thats why the SE where the counties around philly are very republican, yet vote for Clinton and Gore into the 60% range while the west is predominantly democratic around Pittsburgh and Erie yet has been voting Republican as of late. So I doubt congressional candidates will be hurt since they likely share the views of their consituents. Bush however, (who was supposed to be a free trade guy) might get hurt out west.


Just a hunch though...11 months is still pretty early to predict.

The area where Democrats NEVER get elected looks like a Z.
PA is a weird state, that's certainly true, but I've always liked it anyway... probably because it's so quirky...

I'm still a bit confused as to where the Scranton/Wilkes-Barr area fits in to the East-T-West model... is it a piece of the West in the East???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 08:46:18 am
Bush remains popular in Arkansas.  Last time I looked, Huckabee wasn't going to be on the presidential ballot.  Bush is on the ballot - and thank the lord his opponent is going to be Dean.  Write it down, Bush will carry Arkansas by at least 15 points.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 12:03:50 pm
Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democrat leaning state by 15%
Stop being partizan please...

BTW Dean has not won a single vote yet.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 26, 2003, 12:07:21 pm
Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democrat leaning state by 15%
Stop being partizan please...

BTW Dean has not won a single vote yet.


Clinton won the state because he was from it.  With Dean as the nom  Bush will take by at least 10 percent.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 12:14:00 pm
Evidence? Dean hasn't said anything nasty about Bill has he?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 12:38:14 pm
<Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democratic leaning state by 15%.  Stop being partisan please....>

Partisan?  Bush's father beat Dukakis by 15.  McGovern lost by 23.  Mondale lost by 18.  Those are the last 3 northern liberals on the presidential ballot in Arkansas and the results.  Those are the voting trends in Arkansas when the voters there are presented with an opportunity to vote for a northern liberal.  My prediction is quite clearly based on past presidential voting trends, not partisanship.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 26, 2003, 12:39:03 pm
Evidence? Dean hasn't said anything nasty about Bill has he?

Other then he's republican-lite no.  What i said was that the only reason Clinton won Ark was because he was from it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 12:39:36 pm
Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 01:03:45 pm
Bush carried Arkansas by about 6% in '00.  Expect him to take it by about 10% in 2004.

Steel Tarriffs hurt Bush in WV, PA, and OH mostly.  Pa and OH are big electorally, and PA and WV now swing to Dean.  OH is still a toss.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 01:36:18 pm
Arkansas will depend on the candidate, Clark would win AR in a cakewalk, but I'm not sure about the others YET.

BTW please drop the Northern Liberal argument, McGovern and Mondale were both from the midwest.

Bush won't win PA now and is in big trouble in WV.
But he doesn't really need them.
He does need OH and it's a toss-up now...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 01:57:14 pm
Bush can win without all three.  278-Ohio=258+Minnesota+Iowa=275, and a victory.  And he will probably add New Mexico in his sleep.  The election will be decided in the midwest, period.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 03:18:02 pm
Drop the northern liberal argument?   Fine.  Non southern liberal if you prefer.  No non southern liberal has carried Arkansas since 1960.  Satisfied?  Unless we're talking about a southernor (Clinton, Carter) it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference where the lib comes from....McGovern and Mondale from the MW or Dukakis from NE...or Dean from New England for that matter.

Clark would win Arkansas in a cakewalk?  Where do you get this stuff?

Ohio is a tossup?  Uh, Bush is leading every Dem candidate by 8 - 20 points and with that kind of spread nationally there is absolutely no way Dean or anyone else is running even in Ohio.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on December 26, 2003, 03:54:33 pm
Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.

Agreed!  No Republican will win DC in my lifetime (perhaps a good argument why it shoudl never be a state?)

But just to be fair, Minnybean, Tends, and Lovebites prediction of a 538-0 Bush loss are almost as insane, given that Bush won 3 states in 2000 by greater than 40% over Gore.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 03:55:03 pm
Ohio is a tossup.  And you talk about liberals living in a cacoon, where have you been with Bush's repeal of the steel tariffs?  On your own little separate planet?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 26, 2003, 03:56:06 pm
Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.

Agreed!  No Republican will win DC in my lifetime (perhaps a good argument why it shoudl never be a state?)

But just to be fair, Minnybean, Tends, and Lovebites prediction of a 538-0 Bush loss are almost as insane, given that Bush won 3 states in 2000 by greater than 40% over Gore.

If Bush gets a five to ten point swing in his direction it will be a lanslide.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 04:38:45 pm
Ohio is not a tossup steel tariffs or no.  The latest national poll has Bush over Dean 55 - 37.  No way a Republican leaning state like Ohio is a "tossup" with national numbers like that.  BTW, the latest numbers came well AFTER Bush announced he was repealing the steel tariffs.  No cacoon here.  It's called reality my friend.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 26, 2003, 05:00:21 pm
Currently, it is obvious that Bush will win. So talking about current polls isn't necessary. If the elction were held today Bush would win. If it is a close race, similar to 2000, Bush will probably win as well. The Dems need a lot to go their way, and currently nothing is. And that's the bottom line. And you can't accuse me for living in a cacoon, since I don't want that to happen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 05:02:22 pm
Bush winning 55-37% means an 18.5% swing from 2000, so Bush picks up (with his margin of victory in parentheses):

Maine (13%)
Vermont (2%)
New Jersey (2%)
Maryland (1%)
Delaware (5%)
Washington (8%)
Oregon (11.5%)
California (6%)
New Mexico (12%)
Michigan (13%)
Wisconsin (12%)
Iowa (12%)
Illinois (5.5%)

So that leaves Dean with Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, DC, and Hawaii.  I hope that demonstrates to you that polls mean slightly less than nothing before the conventions, and especially before anyone is nominated.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 05:08:26 pm
The only poll that counts is the one next November.  I think we can all agree on that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 05:15:41 pm
With polls you should never read the headline figure, look for % undecided+other and adjust accordingly.
Also check out the outfit that conducted the poll for bias, and adjust accordingly.
Then accept that polls are a waste of time.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on December 26, 2003, 05:18:15 pm
Bush only has 55% in Ohio?

one year before his re-election?

When they talk about incumbents (usually senators) polling only in the low to mid 50s 11 or 12 months before an election in a state, it usually means those incumbents are vulnerable.

Bush is likely safe in Ohio, for now, but given he won it in 2000 and supposedly has high approval ratings, for him to only get 55% right now (as elections draw to a close, undecideds usually favor the challenger) is kinda low.

In PA Bush only breaks 50% in a few polls. Granted he has an 8-11point edge over Dean, but when you can't or barely break 50% 11 months before, you are more vulnerable than you think.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 05:32:15 pm
Bush only has 55% in Ohio?

one year before his re-election?

When they talk about incumbents (usually senators) polling only in the low to mid 50s 11 or 12 months before an election in a state, it usually means those incumbents are vulnerable.

Bush is likely safe in Ohio, for now, but given he won it in 2000 and supposedly has high approval ratings, for him to only get 55% right now (as elections draw to a close, undecideds usually favor the challenger) is kinda low.

In PA Bush only breaks 50% in a few polls. Granted he has an 8-11point edge over Dean, but when you can't or barely break 50% 11 months before, you are more vulnerable than you think.
No, he has 55% nationally.  I have not found an Ohio poll.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 05:36:49 pm
Nor have I seen any specific Ohio polls.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 05:41:23 pm
Nor have I seen any specific Ohio polls.
Haha, this is the first time I have found myself in agreement with you, Agcat!  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 07:04:12 pm
There is a website entitled the Hedgehog Report  It contains daily polls from around the nation.  State Dem primary polls, state general election matchup polls, Dean vs Bush, Kerry vs Bush etc.  Quite interesting.  It's worth a look for all us political junkies.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 07:43:40 pm
What's the web adress?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 10:13:45 pm
www.davidwissing.com

A guy out of Maryland maintains and updates the site.  If you scroll down on the site you get a lot of primary state Democratic polls that are hard to find anywhere else - Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Oklahoma for example.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 27, 2003, 04:15:27 am
When I look at these polls it doesn't really seem that Dean is doing worse against Bush than the supposedly more electable and well-known candidates, such as Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman or Edwards. Is that just lack of name-recognition?  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 27, 2003, 10:27:09 am
When I look at these polls it doesn't really seem that Dean is doing worse against Bush than the supposedly more electable and well-known candidates, such as Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman or Edwards. Is that just lack of name-recognition?  
Yes.  Polls mean nothing right now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 27, 2003, 12:17:52 pm
When I look at these polls it doesn't really seem that Dean is doing worse against Bush than the supposedly more electable and well-known candidates, such as Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman or Edwards. Is that just lack of name-recognition?  

Wait until Bush starts going after Dean.  And with Deans temper it's going to be fun.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 28, 2003, 11:03:39 am
Most of you are probably aware of the 31-31-31 theory. For the first time since it was analysed, America is split into three even camps of Dems, Reps and Inds. That 31% who hold no affiliation are those who will decide the election. Theres no point in either party trying to target the 31% in their own camp, those votes are in the bag. This trend should lead to a more 'centrist' political campaign. Deans campaign for one, is skewed in favour of those he knows are going to vote for him anyway. This is a big mistake. Several months for now it will be down to Dean versus one other candidate. Because the 'anti-Dean' vote is so split between Clark, Lieberman Edwards and Kerry (purposely ignoring the other 3 candidates) I think the odds are still against Dean even at this stage.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 12:20:55 pm
Most of you are probably aware of the 31-31-31 theory. For the first time since it was analysed, America is split into three even camps of Dems, Reps and Inds. That 31% who hold no affiliation are those who will decide the election. Theres no point in either party trying to target the 31% in their own camp, those votes are in the bag. This trend should lead to a more 'centrist' political campaign. Deans campaign for one, is skewed in favour of those he knows are going to vote for him anyway. This is a big mistake. Several months for now it will be down to Dean versus one other candidate. Because the 'anti-Dean' vote is so split between Clark, Lieberman Edwards and Kerry (purposely ignoring the other 3 candidates) I think the odds are still against Dean even at this stage.

I am not aware of the 31-31-31 theory. Is there a brief explanation? And btw is voter turnout included or excluded in polls and so on, since turnout is so low in the US I would have thought it important. If you have 31% of the elctorate that would be enough with a turnout of 55%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 02:21:42 pm
Most of you are probably aware of the 31-31-31 theory. For the first time since it was analysed, America is split into three even camps of Dems, Reps and Inds. That 31% who hold no affiliation are those who will decide the election. Theres no point in either party trying to target the 31% in their own camp, those votes are in the bag. This trend should lead to a more 'centrist' political campaign. Deans campaign for one, is skewed in favour of those he knows are going to vote for him anyway. This is a big mistake. Several months for now it will be down to Dean versus one other candidate. Because the 'anti-Dean' vote is so split between Clark, Lieberman Edwards and Kerry (purposely ignoring the other 3 candidates) I think the odds are still against Dean even at this stage.

That ads up to 93%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on December 28, 2003, 02:29:05 pm
Gustaf, you've hit on a good point about polls and voter turnout.

In a close election, the party that best mobilizes its base will probably win.  Each party has certain segments that would never vote for the other party, but might stay home if they are not happy with the candidates, or even go over to a third party.

In 2000, both parties had problems with their base, with many Christian conservatives staying home, and thereby costing Bush the popular vote.  On the Democratic side, there was Ralph Nader, who siphoned votes away from Gore in certain critical states, most notably Florida.

Polls that don't take likelihood of voting into account can be seriously flawed.  This is a very hard thing to gauge, which is why the polls are sometimes unreliable in predicting the winner.

Nixon had his 40-40-20 theory, that each party would receive 40% of the voters regardless, and that the 20% of the swing voters would decide the election.  There are some theories out now saying that the percentage of swing voters is down to 10%, and that therefore makes it more important for a party to mobilize its base than to go for swing voters.  Maybe this is the theory that Dean is using.

The 31-31-31 theory goes the other way.

Different presidential candidates have used different strategies.  Both Nixon and Clinton used the "last vote" strategy, meaning that they would push as far as they could to the "frontier" of their support (left for Nixon, right for Clinton) as they could without endangering their base.  Others, like Reagan, have mainly concentrated on keeping their base happy, and following through on several core ideas.

Bush seems to be emulating the Clinton strategy, with his massive increases in government spending and the prescription drug care plan.  Dean seems to be going for the base.  We'll see which approach is more successful.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 02:47:42 pm
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 03:31:07 pm
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

The truth about that is Dean can not move to the center even if he wants to.  If he tries Bush bring out tape of him before and during the primaries.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 28, 2003, 03:33:09 pm
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 03:34:26 pm
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 28, 2003, 03:55:34 pm
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 28, 2003, 04:13:10 pm
Bush IS on 55% in Ohio, but only 49% in Mississippi, and only 51% in Georgia.
He is actually polling worse in much of the Deep South than nationally.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:16:33 pm
Bush IS on 55% in Ohio, but only 49% in Mississippi, and only 51% in Georgia.
He is actually polling worse in much of the Deep South than nationally.


Again, do you have a link?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 04:20:27 pm
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:23:57 pm
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
I asked him for a link already, no reason to explode, buddy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:28:10 pm
Gustaf, you've hit on a good point about polls and voter turnout.

In a close election, the party that best mobilizes its base will probably win.  Each party has certain segments that would never vote for the other party, but might stay home if they are not happy with the candidates, or even go over to a third party.

In 2000, both parties had problems with their base, with many Christian conservatives staying home, and thereby costing Bush the popular vote.  On the Democratic side, there was Ralph Nader, who siphoned votes away from Gore in certain critical states, most notably Florida.

Polls that don't take likelihood of voting into account can be seriously flawed.  This is a very hard thing to gauge, which is why the polls are sometimes unreliable in predicting the winner.

Nixon had his 40-40-20 theory, that each party would receive 40% of the voters regardless, and that the 20% of the swing voters would decide the election.  There are some theories out now saying that the percentage of swing voters is down to 10%, and that therefore makes it more important for a party to mobilize its base than to go for swing voters.  Maybe this is the theory that Dean is using.

The 31-31-31 theory goes the other way.

Different presidential candidates have used different strategies.  Both Nixon and Clinton used the "last vote" strategy, meaning that they would push as far as they could to the "frontier" of their support (left for Nixon, right for Clinton) as they could without endangering their base.  Others, like Reagan, have mainly concentrated on keeping their base happy, and following through on several core ideas.

Bush seems to be emulating the Clinton strategy, with his massive increases in government spending and the prescription drug care plan.  Dean seems to be going for the base.  We'll see which approach is more successful.

Well, thank you! Nice words are always appreciated! Now I get what the 31-31-31 thing is all about. But I am wondering if anyone know how the polls are made in this respect? If we suppose that turnout is higher among Reps and Dems than among undecided (which one would suppose) then the undecided wouldn't matter so much. If the polls are actually based on the electorate, and not on likely voters, then 35-40% would actually be well enough, if you just get all of them to vote. That seems wrong since the polls then would make no sense. But if you try to exclude people from polls it can easily backfire. Anyone got insights in what polling institutes do here?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 04:32:59 pm
Explode?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:33:47 pm
Explode?

?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:33:56 pm
Explode?
Yes, explode at Realpolitik.  I already asked him for a link.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:36:22 pm
Explode?
Yes, explode at Realpolitik.  I already asked him for a link.

Ah. I get it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:37:24 pm
Lets' see if agcat gets it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 04:39:18 pm
I just reread my thread in search of the "explosion" and still couldn't find what the hell you are talking about.

However, I'll be anxiously awaiting that link.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:41:16 pm
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:43:29 pm
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:44:49 pm
I don't understand what you are trying to say, Gustaf.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 28, 2003, 04:45:18 pm
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:47:31 pm
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 04:47:51 pm
Move on.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:53:33 pm
Move on.
Agreed.  We will move on.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:53:56 pm
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.

I got confused. I didn't recognise the word explode when Agcat introduced it. Then I found it in your post. So I thought that was what you were trying to show and...whatever, never mind...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:57:41 pm
HUH???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 05:05:18 pm
HUH???

You used explode. Agcat posted "explode?". I didn't get where he had gotten explode from. Then I saw that you had written it down. Then I mixed up his misunderstanding with mine, so I thought you were going to show him when explode was posted first but you didn't. OK? I am tired and thick. Let's move on...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 28, 2003, 05:05:36 pm
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.

I got confused. I didn't recognise the word explode when Agcat introduced it. Then I found it in your post. So I thought that was what you were trying to show and...whatever, never mind...

lol...oh boy...lets just...pretend like it never happend. Nothing was ever said about exploding...back to where we were before all this confusion. Where were we anyway?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 05:07:06 pm
We were....
Realpolitik is supposed to be posting a link to a poll that shows Bush at a 49% re-elect # in the deep south.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on December 28, 2003, 05:16:07 pm

Well, thank you! Nice words are always appreciated! Now I get what the 31-31-31 thing is all about. But I am wondering if anyone know how the polls are made in this respect? If we suppose that turnout is higher among Reps and Dems than among undecided (which one would suppose) then the undecided wouldn't matter so much. If the polls are actually based on the electorate, and not on likely voters, then 35-40% would actually be well enough, if you just get all of them to vote. That seems wrong since the polls then would make no sense. But if you try to exclude people from polls it can easily backfire. Anyone got insights in what polling institutes do here?

Accurate polls must gauge the probability that a person will actually vote, and discount the opinions of those unlikely to vote.  People can be asked if they plan to vote, but they may not answer truthfully.  They can also be asked if they voted in the last election, or if they are even registered.  Statistically, adjustments can be made to determine voting likelihood, and discounting the opinions of those unlikely to vote.

As far as the undecideds go, they are also a problem, so certain assumptions have to be made there too, depending upon how far away the election is.  Generally speaking, voters who are undecided close to the election will probably break in favor of the challenger rather than the incumbent, since being undecided that late implies reservations about the incumbent.  In addition, other questions can be asked to determine the direction in which the voter is likely to lean.

It's true that Republicans generally have a better turnout than Democrats because their voters are generally more motivated.  But it may not be as true as it used to be.

I think I get your point about needing 35-40% of the electorate to win.  The actual number is lower, given our low voter turnout.  But I don't think it can be looked at that way for the reason you mentioned -- the people you count on to vote for your candidate must turn out.  So I think the only way to look at it is in terms of likely voters.

All these complications point out why it's so difficult to accurately predict winners in elections.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 05:22:31 pm

Well, thank you! Nice words are always appreciated! Now I get what the 31-31-31 thing is all about. But I am wondering if anyone know how the polls are made in this respect? If we suppose that turnout is higher among Reps and Dems than among undecided (which one would suppose) then the undecided wouldn't matter so much. If the polls are actually based on the electorate, and not on likely voters, then 35-40% would actually be well enough, if you just get all of them to vote. That seems wrong since the polls then would make no sense. But if you try to exclude people from polls it can easily backfire. Anyone got insights in what polling institutes do here?

Accurate polls must gauge the probability that a person will actually vote, and discount the opinions of those unlikely to vote.  People can be asked if they plan to vote, but they may not answer truthfully.  They can also be asked if they voted in the last election, or if they are even registered.  Statistically, adjustments can be made to determine voting likelihood, and discounting the opinions of those unlikely to vote.

As far as the undecideds go, they are also a problem, so certain assumptions have to be made there too, depending upon how far away the election is.  Generally speaking, voters who are undecided close to the election will probably break in favor of the challenger rather than the incumbent, since being undecided that late implies reservations about the incumbent.  In addition, other questions can be asked to determine the direction in which the voter is likely to lean.

It's true that Republicans generally have a better turnout than Democrats because their voters are generally more motivated.  But it may not be as true as it used to be.

I think I get your point about needing 35-40% of the electorate to win.  The actual number is lower, given our low voter turnout.  But I don't think it can be looked at that way for the reason you mentioned -- the people you count on to vote for your candidate must turn out.  So I think the only way to look at it is in terms of likely voters.

All these complications point out why it's so difficult to accurately predict winners in elections.

I know that in Sweden attempts to predict elections based on likeliness of people voting failed miserably. They actually gave worse results than those ignoring turn-out. This happened both before our last election when the right was boosted in the polls due to higher turn-out, which didn't materailze on election day, and in our referendum, where everyone thought the yes-side would do better than the polls b/c they were showned to ave higher turn-out, but they actually did worse.  

I'm not an expert but these things are really hard to predict.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 06:25:44 pm
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 06:38:38 pm
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.
Riiight.....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 06:50:46 pm
I don't know about hate, but it sure is not a responsible position for the President of the United States to take.

Pretty academic though.  Dean is never going to make it to the White House -  unless he takes the tour.  I hear it's pretty good.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 06:51:04 pm
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.
Riiight.....

What i understand from listening to him that he would rather negotiate why the city is burning then fight.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 06:55:22 pm
I believe Dean's latest position is that he "would have gone into Iraq if we had gotten the PERMISSION of the UN".

Good one Howard.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 06:56:26 pm
I believe Dean's latest position is that he "would have gone into Iraq if we had gotten the PERMISSION of the UN".

Good one Howard.

That is a leftist position.  I said it before it may work in the primaries but not in the general.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 06:57:13 pm
That's why he needs to sign up for the White House tour.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 06:58:00 pm
That's why he needs to sign up for the White House tour.

Dean has to many yes-men and hardcore leftist around him and it will drag him down.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 06:59:23 pm
I share a love of Howard Dean with liberal Democrats - for slightly different reasons.  Ha


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 07:00:40 pm
I share a love of Howard Dean with liberal Democrats - for slightly different reasons.  Ha

Watching Howard Dean is like watching a NASCAR race.  Because no matter what people say they only watch for one reason.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 07:00:54 pm
Bickering among conservatives...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 07:01:23 pm
It's gonna be a fun ride.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 07:02:04 pm
It's gonna be a fun ride.

A very fun ride.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on December 28, 2003, 08:36:21 pm
Prediction update:  Over 300 predictions now entered!
158/306 predictors predict a Bush win with the average EV Bush = 291 and Democratic nominee = 247.  Although the average is still pretty close to the 2000 results, a bigger Bush  trend has developed over the last 100 predictions:
59/100 predict a Bush win, Bush  313 EV,  Democrat  225.  Most strikingly,  the number of landslide wins (>350 EV) predicted for Bush among the last 100 predictions is 36, almost 5 times the number of democratic landslides (7) predicted.  So at this point in time the collective wisdom of the Forum posters is for a modest Bush win.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 29, 2003, 06:19:56 am
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 29, 2003, 08:16:39 am
interesting site


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 29, 2003, 08:29:14 am
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...

This site has been posted once before by someone and then been posted again by me, so this is the third time. But everyone seem equally happy each time...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 29, 2003, 09:51:03 am
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...
At least you weren't lying... :)
Bush is under 50% in Alabama but it shouldn't be a concern.  The Dem only has 30% there, and a candidate like Dean wouldn't have a prayer.  dean really can only make a run at Arkansas, Florida, and maybe Tennessee and Louisiana in the south.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 29, 2003, 09:57:44 am
I bookmarked the site.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 29, 2003, 10:05:50 am
I bookmarked the site.
I would, but I have bookmarked 150 things and it is mighty cluttered up there....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 29, 2003, 11:39:45 am
I bookmarked the site.
I would, but I have bookmarked 150 things and it is mighty cluttered up there....

I have too many bookmarks now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 29, 2003, 11:49:17 am
made afew seperate folders in my favorites for national politics and newspapers by states and  such.

Just make sub categories.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 29, 2003, 11:53:57 am
made afew seperate folders in my favorites for national politics and newspapers by states and  such.

Just make sub categories.

too much trouble.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 29, 2003, 12:00:23 pm
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...
At least you weren't lying... :)
Bush is under 50% in Alabama but it shouldn't be a concern.  The Dem only has 30% there, and a candidate like Dean wouldn't have a prayer.  dean really can only make a run at Arkansas, Florida, and maybe Tennessee and Louisiana in the south.

You mean Mississippi? the only poll from AL was by an outfit I have never heard of and is outdated. But then I always used to get MS and AL confused as well... :)

The methodology of that poll is interesting and quite useful in that it shows the Incumbent's score and the score of people certain to vote against the incumbent, but also the people who will probably vote against the incumbent in a seperate list.

Most people seem to think that Dean is certain to be the Democrat nominee so a generic score is probably closer to a Dean score than one for any other candidate.

Bush seems(if the polls are even vaugely accurate) to have some problems in the Deep South at the moment(but why? Iraq causualties? poverty? general anti-incumbency? other?) and It'll be interesting to see if it stays this way.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 29, 2003, 12:12:30 pm
Well for one not a lot of people are focused on General election yet.  It is a ways off and still waiting for Dems to pick a nominee.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 29, 2003, 12:18:46 pm
made afew seperate folders in my favorites for national politics and newspapers by states and  such.

Just make sub categories.
I'm too lazy for that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 29, 2003, 12:47:31 pm
oh my you guys sometimes leae yourselves wide open to a good slam :)

a democrat lazy, no come on!  :) :) he he


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 05:42:59 am
I noticed before when I checked, that after, what I think was hundreds of predictions, the median was actually that every single state would vote like they did in 2000. Points at a lack of fantasy, don't you think? :) According to Jvravnsbo it is leaning republican now, so maybe people are really making predictions now!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 05:52:56 am
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 07:07:12 am
I do it on balance of probabilities(ie: current polling shows that Bush might struggle to hold MS but I'm not sure either way, so I put it as a low D on the prediction map but tossup on the confidance map)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 07:57:41 am
I do it on balance of probabilities(ie: current polling shows that Bush might struggle to hold MS but I'm not sure either way, so I put it as a low D on the prediction map but tossup on the confidance map)

I just loked up your prediction map. It's interesting...you kind of go against the general view in predicting the dems doing well in the south but worse than in 2000 in other places (NM, NV, NH, etc). You have given most of the tossup EVs to the GOP, but that is acceptable since you still put the Dems as winner and is one yourself!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 08:09:36 am
At the moment it looks as though Bush is polling worse in the Deep South than in most of the rest of the U.S(and this came as a shock to me. Mind you the last governor in the Deep South to be re-elected was Mike Foster in 1999...)
My map is also based on the presumption that the Dems will fight over the economy and possibly causalities in Iraq, not on social issues(and if they want to win that's what they have to do)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 09:08:24 am
In 2000, Bush carried 72% of congressional districts in the 11 state South - almost half of those with 60% plus percentages.  This was against southernor Gore.  Don't expect a Howard Dean to do nearly as well against Bush in 2004.  However, republicans would welcome the Dems throwing as many resources as they want to at the South.  A little over half of the Southern congressional districts represented by Dems in the South were carried by Bush.  In other words, southern whites, while they sometimes vote for moderate southerners at the local level, are presidential Republicans through and through.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 09:45:15 am
I wasn't talking about polls here, but real polls.  In recent weeks PA, FL, MO, NH and many others have come out with Bush in a huge lead over Dean or Clark or whomever.


I noticed before when I checked, that after, what I think was hundreds of predictions, the median was actually that every single state would vote like they did in 2000. Points at a lack of fantasy, don't you think? :) According to Jvravnsbo it is leaning republican now, so maybe people are really making predictions now!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 09:47:20 am
Yes last re-elected was in 1999, and I guess that is if you don't count FL being in the deep south.

However the GOP did just elect governors in SC, MS, AL, AR (Hey this was a reelection in 2002) so to just say reelection is a bit misleading.


At the moment it looks as though Bush is polling worse in the Deep South than in most of the rest of the U.S(and this came as a shock to me. Mind you the last governor in the Deep South to be re-elected was Mike Foster in 1999...)
My map is also based on the presumption that the Dems will fight over the economy and possibly causalities in Iraq, not on social issues(and if they want to win that's what they have to do)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 09:49:23 am
Especially when Dean says we need to stop talking about "God, guns and Gays" and then comes out last weeka nd says he will talk more about his religion int he south.  He announced that.

FLIP FLOP--people are and will see through that.


In 2000, Bush carried 72% of congressional districts in the 11 state South - almost half of those with 60% plus percentages.  This was against southernor Gore.  Don't expect a Howard Dean to do nearly as well against Bush in 2004.  However, republicans would welcome the Dems throwing as many resources as they want to at the South.  A little over half of the Southern congressional districts represented by Dems in the South were carried by Bush.  In other words, southern whites, while they sometimes vote for moderate southerners at the local level, are presidential Republicans through and through.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 10:06:10 am
Just because whites in a southern district choose to elect a Democrat to Congress, doesn't mean they will swallow a national Democrat as President.  For instance, in Texas, there were 6 districts represented by Democrats in congress but carried handily by Bush.  5 of 6 by at least 60 - 40.  Southern whites are presidential Republicans.  Dems trying to project the election of some Dem victories at the congressional or state wide office level to mean that automatically transfers to a Dean vote as President are living in a fantasy world.  There just isn't any empirical evidence to suggest that.  None.

It is what it is.  I' ve said on this board that i'd love to believe that Bush is going to surprise in Massachusetts or Maryland or Rhode Island.  However, I'm a realist, and there just is no evidence in past voting statistics that this will happen.  I'd rather Rove run his campaign based on what is doable and not what he'd like to happen.  I'm afraid the Dean people are engaging in wishful thinking.  In fact, I know they are.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 10:15:39 am
Plus as I've said they are voting for CONSERVATIVE to MODERATE dems in congress, Dean is neither.

Here is a story about Kentucky and how the state Dem party is struggling, esp note how they are strugggling with the national parties stands ona lot of issues.

---
Democrats Losing the Lease on Their Old Kentucky Home
 
     Related Stories

Party Chief Won't Break Up Scuffles
December 30, 2003
  Times Headlines  
 
Democrats Losing the Lease on Their Old Kentucky Home
 
 
Party Chief Won't Break Up Scuffles
 
 
Kerry Tackles Dean in a Backyard Battle
 
 
Money Pours In for Dean, Clark
 
 
Gephardt Proposes More for Disabled
 
 
more >
 
   
       
 
 
 
 
 POLITICS  
 
 KENTUCKY  
 
 KENTUCKY DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLITICS  
 
 DEMOCRATIC PARTY  
 

 

   
 
 
 
 
 
   
By John M. Glionna, Times Staff Writer


LA GRANGE, Ky. — Dethroned Democrat John Black stands on his front porch and gazes ruefully across the street at the City Hall building that had been his life. The longtime public official was voted out of office last month — just one victim of a Republican fervor that has galloped clear across this horse-breeding state.

"It's over," he says softly, pacing in his socks on a cold Kentucky morning. After serving 10 years as mayor and two terms as judge executive, an office similar to county supervisor, Black sighs, "My political career is history, all because I'm a Democrat. And that's just a crying shame."

Kentucky is among a handful of states close to the Deep South — including West Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas — that Bill Clinton carried in 1992 and 1996, but that George W. Bush won in 2000. Experts predict that the Democrats probably need to win some of them back to capture the presidency in 2004. .

Democrats once held unquestioned sway in Kentucky. But no more. The state recently elected its first GOP governor in 32 years. The GOP also has made gains from the coal fields in the east to the white-fenced horse stables of suburban Lexington. And this political transformation in Kentucky illustrates the hurdles Democrats will face as they battle to win moderate-to-conservative states in next year's presidential election.

Politicos like Black now view their national party as a liability. They have a stern word of advice for a Howard Dean or any other Democratic presidential nominee who might come calling to reclaim a state that went for Bush: You're in trouble.

The state's 4 million residents — 91% of them white, many the direct descendants of the original 18th century pioneering landowners — have rallied behind the Republican agenda of tax cuts, a well-funded military and increased domestic security.

Meanwhile, local Democrats say they have been hurt by the positions their national leaders take on divisive social issues, such as support for same-sex unions and abortion rights.

"The Republicans are strong in many of these states and becoming increasingly so," said Hastings Wyman, editor of a bimonthly newsletter, Southern Political Report. "These places are conservative on social issues, hawkish on foreign affairs — and that plays into Republican hands."

Even loyal Kentucky Democrats predict that Dean, the former Vermont governor broad-brushed by Republicans as an East Coast liberal, would turn off voters here if he emerges as the party's nominee. They say more moderate candidates, such as retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark or Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, would fare better, but still lose to Bush.

"George Bush is more popular in Kentucky than any state outside Texas," said Paul Blanchard, formerly of the Center for Kentucky History and Politics at Eastern Kentucky University. "Nothing he does with the economy or in Iraq seems to diminish his popularity here."

In Gratz, tobacco farmer Ricky Fitzgerald gives voice to such attitudes, saying the Republicans speak his mind. "I'll be a Bush man until the cows come home. I was so sick of Clinton and the Democrats who ride that same donkey."

Kentucky's religious bent also seemingly works against the Democrats. The state ranks eighth nationally in the number of churches per person, with 18 for every 10,000 residents. And surveys in recent years have shown that church attendance has become an indicator of voting preferences — those who go to services at least once a week are far more likely to back Bush than those who rarely attend.

In 1992, Clinton was able to win in Kentucky by capitalizing on a faltering national economy. He won it again in 1996, but by a narrower margin.

"Clinton talked about a middle-class tax cut and presented himself as a political moderate," said Wyman. "He was a Southern candidate with a Southern running mate. That played well in Kentucky and elsewhere in the region."

But Kentucky residents soured on Clinton and, more recently, Democratic Gov. Paul E. Patton after well-publicized sex scandals. "The Democrats have worn out their welcome," said La Grange resident Meredith Recktenwald. "It started with Clinton and continued right on through ex-Gov. Patton."

Patton's last year in office was clouded by controversy after he first denied, then acknowledged, an affair with a Kentucky businesswoman.

A Democratic fiefdom for roughly 100 years after the Civil War, Kentucky became more receptive to the GOP in presidential elections and some Senate and House races in the 1960s, when the national Democratic Party shifted to the left. But for the most part, state and local offices remained solidly Democratic.

Registered Democrats, in fact, still outnumber Republicans in the state 60% to 40%. But now, many of those Democrats routinely cross party lines when casting their ballot.

"People here didn't leave the Democrats — the party deserted the people of Kentucky," said Paducah Mayor William F. Paxton, a registered Democrat who regularly votes for Republican presidential candidates and in November voted for the new Republican governor, Ernie Fletcher. "With their gay rights and abortions, they just became too darned liberal."

Kentucky state Sen. Tim Shaughnessy, another Democrat, plans to disassociate himself from the national party during his run for reelection next year. "The Democrats are beginning to look like an extremist fringe group," he said. "There's no clear message being delivered — not here and not on the national level."

Shaughnessy is now in the minority in the state Senate, something that would have been hard to imagine in 1988, when Democrats controlled the chamber by nearly a 5-to-1 margin. Republicans now outnumber the Democrats 22 to 16. The GOP took over the chamber in 1999, when two state senators switched parties to join the Republicans.

Democrats still enjoy a comfortable majority, 65 to 35, in the state House. But with help from their new governor, Republicans are confident they can chip away at that margin.

At the federal level, the picture looks bleak for Kentucky Democrats. The state's two senators and five of its six congressmen are Republicans.

Rep. Ken Lucas, the sole Democrat, recently decided not to run for reelection. If they lose that seat next year, Kentucky Democrats will have no voice whatsoever in the nation's capital — ending an era that has seen the state elect at least one Democrat every year since 1828.

Running for Lucas' seat is Democrat Nick Clooney, a newspaper columnist and father of actor George Clooney. The elder Clooney is already being skewered for his family's leftist politics. Carped one state Republican voter in an Internet political chat room: "Given how far left George Looney is, I'm betting Daddy is also a kooky liberal."

On the national front, Kentucky Republicans claim Dean is so far out of line with voters here that he'd lose a "whisper campaign" on just his support of civil unions for gay couples.

"The Democrats' Hollywood left-wing party isn't registering a geehaw with our voters," said Ellen Williams, chairwoman of the Kentucky Republican Party. "The only way a Howard Dean could win votes here is not to speak — to just smile and shake hands. The moment he opens his mouth, he loses voters."

One voter Dean himself says the Democrats have lost is the middle-class Southern white male, a defection party loyalists acknowledge could loom large in next year's presidential race.

"Howard Dean was right — we need that good ol' boy in the pickup truck. Especially in Kentucky," Shaughnessy said. "Because that guy lives in every county across this state. The Democratic Party used to be his party, but not anymore. And we've got to find a way to get him back."

The Democrats haven't lost John Black — not yet. Since leaving office, he's tried selling real estate. But he's not happy. "I want to stay in public service, but it seems the only way to do that is to change parties," he said.

"People tell me to move to another county, but the way I see it there is no place to go. They're all turning Republican."


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 10:54:50 am
I wasn't talking about polls here, but real polls.  In recent weeks PA, FL, MO, NH and many others have come out with Bush in a huge lead over Dean or Clark or whomever.


I've warned you about this before: Do NOT look at leads! The key number is BUSH's number, not Deans, not Clarks.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 10:58:37 am
Yes last re-elected was in 1999, and I guess that is if you don't count FL being in the deep south.

However the GOP did just elect governors in SC, MS, AL, AR (Hey this was a reelection in 2002) so to just say reelection is a bit misleading.


Neither FL or AR is in the Deep South.
Whoever they actually voted for is immaterial.
The point is that within two years every state in the Deep South has elected a governer from a different party than the incumbents.
Facts are Facts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:01:00 am
I would definately consider Arkansas int eh deep south.

What do you define as the deep south?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:05:08 am

It is what it is.  I' ve said on this board that i'd love to believe that Bush is going to surprise in Massachusetts or Maryland or Rhode Island.  However, I'm a realist, and there just is no evidence in past voting statistics that this will happen.  I'd rather Rove run his campaign based on what is doable and not what he'd like to happen.  I'm afraid the Dean people are engaging in wishful thinking.  In fact, I know they are.

Not comparing like with like are you?(except possibly Maryland)
The GOP do not dominate any Southern state in the way that the Democrats dominate MA or RI.
They do dominate places like UT or WY in that way though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:20:57 am
That article you posted is terrible.
No sound analysis, plenty of guesswork, lot's of bad witnesses(using a Republican on a chatroom????) bad facts, out of date(a special election in KY-6 could go either way, the Dems are going after KY-3 again... oh and note that what gains the GOP made in the east in 1999 was REVERSED in 2003), badly written, generalises things...

Oh and does not mention that Bush is polling worse in KY than average(can't let those annoying facts get in the way of yet another "ohh... the Democratic Party is dead..." article can we?)

And I don't care who wrote it: bad is bad.

[turns off rant mode]


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 11:26:06 am
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  
Tossups should not sbe equally distributed between the parties.  If the popular vote of the rest of the nation is 60-40%, why would you give 50% of hte tossups to each side?  Distribute the tossups like this:

If there are 250 Dem Ev's and 200 Republican Ev's, give 20% more of the remaining states to the Dems.

Please tell me if this is heard to understand.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:36:12 am
 
 
Hardly a Republican chat room, it comes from the LA TIMES today.  And the times which went after Arnold and others and is HARDLY A conservative newspaper.  I can get the link if you want proof.


   




That article you posted is terrible.
No sound analysis, plenty of guesswork, lot's of bad witnesses(using a Republican on a chatroom????) bad facts, out of date(a special election in KY-6 could go either way, the Dems are going after KY-3 again... oh and note that what gains the GOP made in the east in 1999 was REVERSED in 2003), badly written, generalises things...

Oh and does not mention that Bush is polling worse in KY than average(can't let those annoying facts get in the way of yet another "ohh... the Democratic Party is dead..." article can we?)

And I don't care who wrote it: bad is bad.

[turns off rant mode]


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:38:39 am
I would definately consider Arkansas int eh deep south.

What do you define as the deep south?

SC, GA, AL, MS, LA; the coastal plain basically.
Much of Arkansas is hilly so is geographically "Upper South", it also has a relatively(ie: for the South) low population of African-Americans and the race card is rarely played(in comparison to the rest of the South)
It also sits "on top" of Lousiana ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:41:45 am
Well i think most americans would consider it part of the deep south. But I guess then that wouldn't fit your theory.

I would definately consider Arkansas int eh deep south.

What do you define as the deep south?

SC, GA, AL, MS, LA; the coastal plain basically.
Much of Arkansas is hilly so is geographically "Upper South", it also has a relatively(ie: for the South) low population of African-Americans and the race card is rarely played(in comparison to the rest of the South)
It also sits "on top" of Lousiana ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 11:42:51 am
<The point is that within two years every state in the Deep South has elected a governor from a different party than the incumbents.  Facts are facts>

They sure are.  Quit ignoring them.   Citing a Dem elected here and there in local or statewide racea means absolutely nothing with regard to how whites vote at the PRESIDENTIAL level in the SOUTH.  

Even if the Dems somehow captured Kentucky 6th, it would mean absolutely nothing for Howard Dean in the PRESIDENTIAL general election.  Those white voters will not swallow Dean.  Bush carried the district by 13 points in 2000.  I'll wager anything you want (a meal of Texas BBQ vs. a platter of fish & chips or something) that Bush carries that district by more than 13pts against Howard Dean.

I think you are very knowlegable about American electoral politics in general and I respect your opinions.  You certainly are 100 times more well informed about politics here than I am about British politics.  However, with regard to the South, you are simply wrong.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:48:04 am
Ah... but the article was about Kentucky in general not a specific presidential election(I would guess that W would carry KY-6 even if he loses KY. Balance of probabilities again)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:50:17 am
I've never really thought of Arkansas as part of the Deep South anyway(it's part in part out), so whatever theory I might have I've not twisted geography.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:56:12 am
But as has been happening, KY has been trending to GOP with 2 GOP senators now.  pending the special election all congressional seats are gOP except 1 and he and the dem is retiring.  The Governorship which has been in dem hands for a LONG time has now switched and KY voted for Bush in 2000.


Ah... but the article was about Kentucky in general not a specific presidential election(I would guess that W would carry KY-6 even if he loses KY. Balance of probabilities again)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:56:57 am
But deep south is not just about geography but cultural and values and way of life.


I've never really thought of Arkansas as part of the Deep South anyway(it's part in part out), so whatever theory I might have I've not twisted geography.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 12:03:39 pm
But deep south is not just about geography but cultural and values and way of life.

Even if you use that Arkansas is not in the Deep South(parts are, most are not)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 12:10:51 pm
I suspect that our friend from across the pond continues to underestimate the cultural and social conservative nature of the South and it's effect on southern voting patterns for one very understandable reason.  He has never been exposed to anything like that kind of conservativism in Britain and can't begin to identify with it.  This is understandable.  I doubt anything like it even exists among the tories.  There's nothing like it in Great Britain and it's hard to give a lot of credense to something you can't identify with.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 12:24:39 pm
Yes I agree.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 12:38:17 pm
I suspect that our friend from across the pond continues to underestimate the cultural and social conservative nature of the South and it's effect on southern voting patterns for one very understandable reason.  He has never been exposed to anything like that kind of conservativism in Britain and can't begin to identify with it.  This is understandable.  I doubt anything like it even exists among the tories.  There's nothing like it in Great Britain and it's hard to give a lot of credense to something you can't identify with.

Nope.
I'm perfectly well aware that the GOP has been able to manipulate Southern voters with "wedge issues", and unless the Democrats campaign on economic issues they don't have a prayer in the Deep South.
Also we DO have race-baiters and gay-bashers over here.
Heard of Norman Tebbit(aka: "The Chingford Skinhead") or Enoch Powell("Rivers of Blood") before?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 12:45:45 pm
I suspect that our friend from across the pond continues to underestimate the cultural and social conservative nature of the South and it's effect on southern voting patterns for one very understandable reason.  He has never been exposed to anything like that kind of conservativism in Britain and can't begin to identify with it.  This is understandable.  I doubt anything like it even exists among the tories.  There's nothing like it in Great Britain and it's hard to give a lot of credense to something you can't identify with.
I don't think he has.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 12:47:20 pm
So southern whites who vote for Bush are voting for a race- baiter and gay-basher?  Oh brother.....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 12:55:31 pm
So southern whites who vote for Bush are voting for a race- baiter and gay-basher?  Oh brother.....
I don't understand where you got that statement from.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 12:56:38 pm
Read realpoilitic's last post.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 12:57:41 pm
me either, we were discussing how the south is culturally conservative.  I see that as beig hard to argue with, they don't call it the "bible belt" for nothing.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 12:58:50 pm
Read realpoilitic's last post.
I did.  He said that there are race-baiters and gay-bashers in the UK also.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 12:59:39 pm
I never said that Bush is either.
What I said was that the people who exploit predjudice in the Deep South(eg. Trent Lott) are similer to people like Powell and Tebbit.
I did NOT call Bush a race-baiter OR a gay-basher.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:05:24 pm
I have been arguing that the South is cultural conservative and that's why they vote Republican - that that kind of cultural conservatism doesn't exist in Britain.  Realpolitic seemed to equate cultural conservatism in the South with "race-baiting" and "gay bashing" since he brought up those terms.  What do those two terms have to do with conservative?  I'm neither and the President I vote for is not either one of those.  Conservative yes.  Conservative does not equal race-baiting and gay - bashing.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:06:10 pm
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  
Tossups should not sbe equally distributed between the parties.  If the popular vote of the rest of the nation is 60-40%, why would you give 50% of hte tossups to each side?  Distribute the tossups like this:

If there are 250 Dem Ev's and 200 Republican Ev's, give 20% more of the remaining states to the Dems.

Please tell me if this is heard to understand.

Okay, I see your point. I think of tossups as states where the candidates are tied and thus they are hard to predict. Then I think they would most likely spread out equally. I don't reason like they would be affected by how other states vote. If the Dems carry New York resoundingly it won't help them win a close race in New Mexico, or whatever states you might pick.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:07:40 pm
Oh we have some VERY socially conservative areas over here...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:09:55 pm
Then why bring up "gay bashers" and race -baiters?  I don't see the connection with the cultural conservatism we were discussing.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:10:18 pm
I am far from being an expert, but I did think that Arkansas was not part of the deep south. It seems to make sense looking at electoral maps, if you define deep south states as those who always vote the same way: Goldwater, Wallace and so on. Then you get a marked difference between those with DS voting patterns and those with other ones.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:11:32 pm
I have never really considered Arkansas to be part of the deep South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:14:45 pm
I have never really considered Arkansas to be part of the deep South.

An Agreement!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:15:58 pm
Yeah!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:16:21 pm
I have never really considered Arkansas to be part of the deep South.

An Agreement!

The unholiest alliance on the forum so far? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:19:45 pm
very possible - hehe


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:20:04 pm
I would say...

Every forum has an incredibly long thread, and this is ours!  Yay!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:23:27 pm
Aha... :)
...although I hear that Jmf and Migrendel might come to an agreement on something... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:24:17 pm
Aha... :)
...although I hear that Jmf and Migrendel might come to an agreement on something... ;)
Nah... :) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:26:07 pm
I would say...

Every forum has an incredibly long thread, and this is ours!  Yay!

That is actually natural, since it is an ongoing discussion as predictions change and events unfold.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:27:05 pm
Let's set a trap... something like "is sex with poodles always immoral"... and wait for John-mr_president to fight for the "yes" side...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:32:40 pm
Let's set a trap... something like "is sex with poodles always immoral"... and wait for John-mr_president to fight for the "yes" side...

I thought they were on opposite sides of the political spectre (or maybe they're an entity of some sorts...:)). John actually asked us to stop talking about them "like that" on another thread, so maybe they will join forces! :) It is kind hard to understand them though.  

I think you could get jmf to post rather a lot on that subject if you got him mad enough (although there might be a limited number of bible quotes there...:))


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:34:15 pm
John logged in last evening but didn't post.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:34:58 pm
Does anyone here remember Democrat/Republican?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:37:07 pm
Does anyone here remember Democrat/Republican?
I have read many of his posts.  He was playing around, he wasn't being serious.  but why did Leip let him post?  He was obviously a troll, delete his account.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:38:21 pm
Does anyone here remember Democrat/Republican?

Would that be the old forum?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:38:56 pm
Does anyone here remember Democrat/Republican?

Would that be the old forum?
Yeah.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:41:13 pm
Ah yes, Democrat/Republican.  I remember him well....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:42:22 pm
Ah yes, Democrat/Republican.  I remember him well....
You didn't register until after his departure.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:43:53 pm
I'm just wondering whether or not not John/mr_president is Democrat/Republican...
[cue dramatic music/thunder]


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:44:47 pm
I doubt it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:45:07 pm
I was on the old forum - had to reregister for the new forum and start over.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:46:45 pm
I know that---

But you registered on July 2, 2003, and by that time Democrat's threads were buried.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:47:52 pm
Your point....?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:48:53 pm
Your point....?
Democrat stopped posting way before youm registered.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:50:03 pm
I read a number of his old posts, but who cares?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:51:27 pm
I read a number of his old posts, but who cares?
So wouldn't it be inaccurate to say you remember him?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:53:07 pm
No, I read his some of his old posts on the old forum.  Not all were buried.

Get a life.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:54:59 pm
No, I read his some of his old posts on the old forum.  Not all were buried.

Get a life.
No reason to make harsh remarks, which is always what you seem to do.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:55:44 pm
Yawn


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:56:59 pm
Yawn
Truce??


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:57:42 pm
No problem


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:58:56 pm
Good.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 02:45:20 pm
Good.

I don't believe it! You had a really good chance to build a pyramid there, but oh, no, you decided not to quote each other! *Sigh*

Btw, Realpolitik seem to take for granted that Mr_president and John are in fact one and the same [cue more dramatic music/thunder].

Do everyone think this? They do have different e-mail adresses.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 03:11:19 pm
Good.

I don't believe it! You had a really good chance to build a pyramid there, but oh, no, you decided not to quote each other! *Sigh*

Btw, Realpolitik seem to take for granted that Mr_president and John are in fact one and the same [cue more dramatic music/thunder].

Do everyone think this? They do have different e-mail adresses.
I didn't want a pyramid.
I'm not sure if John and Prez are the same person but htey act like it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Brown73 on December 31, 2003, 01:36:42 pm
I read in an earlier post that the Electoral College Calculator on the John Edwards website was pretty good.  In truth, it's got a lot of inaccuracies, including Louisiana going Republican in 1992, South Dakota going Democratic in 1976, and New York going Republican in 1988.  So if you're looking for accurate trends, your best site is the "grayraven" site.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 02:10:38 pm


got a link?

I read in an earlier post that the Electoral College Calculator on the John Edwards website was pretty good.  In truth, it's got a lot of inaccuracies, including Louisiana going Republican in 1992, South Dakota going Democratic in 1976, and New York going Republican in 1988.  So if you're looking for accurate trends, your best site is the "grayraven" site.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 02:10:58 pm
and welcome to the forum


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 02:16:19 pm
Here is the link to Edwards' electoral college calculator:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

It is good, but the deluxe calculator here is the best one I have seen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 03:02:56 pm
sorry miami I should have been more specific, i meant if Brown had a link.  I have looked at the edwards map before, but good for others to see it.


Here is the link to Edwards' electoral college calculator:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

It is good, but the deluxe calculator here is the best one I have seen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 03:05:43 pm
What did you want a link to?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 03:41:14 pm
something called grayraven?  maybe I can find it with google search .


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 03:43:44 pm
http://www.grayraven.com/ec


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 03:54:29 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 04:20:15 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 05:55:37 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 06:42:18 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 31, 2003, 06:52:38 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 06:55:41 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 31, 2003, 06:56:51 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 07:43:03 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 08:56:25 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 08:57:09 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:00:49 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 09:03:00 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:06:27 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 09:10:26 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:11:21 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 09:14:37 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:20:57 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 09:21:58 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 31, 2003, 10:52:45 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 11:35:00 pm



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee
Every time I do this another quote disappears,t hus the pyramids are not improved.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 06:31:49 am



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

http://www.grayraven.com/ec
Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee
Every time I do this another quote disappears,t hus the pyramids are not improved.

You're right, they don't get any better... :( :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 01, 2004, 10:24:15 am
Enough with the pyramids! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 10:25:19 am
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 11:12:31 am
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 12:51:27 pm
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.
I'll help out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 01:04:12 pm
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.
I'll help out.
good for you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 01:05:45 pm
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.
I'll help out.
good for you.
No--good for YOU.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 01:06:28 pm
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.
I'll help out.
good for you.
No--good for YOU.
good for everyone.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 01:09:16 pm
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.
I'll help out.
good for you.
No--good for YOU.
good for everyone.
Agreed.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 01:09:43 pm
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.
I'll help out.
good for you.
No--good for YOU.
good for everyone.
Agreed.
Yes it is.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 01:11:05 pm
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.
I'll help out.
good for you.
No--good for YOU.
good for everyone.
Agreed.
Yes it is.
LETS GO HURRICANES!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 03:53:59 pm
Enough with the pyramids! :)
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.
I'll help out.
good for you.
No--good for YOU.
good for everyone.
Agreed.
Yes it is.
LETS GO HURRICANES!!!

I shall pitch in
why not?

and yet again to get my post count up
17 now?
wow.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 03:59:37 pm
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 04:00:18 pm
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)
It is very deep.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:03:57 pm
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)
It is very deep.
That depends on who it's directed at.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 04:04:28 pm
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)
It is very deep.
That depends on who it's directed at.
Very true.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:06:19 pm
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)
It is very deep.
That depends on who it's directed at.
Very true.
Who is being deep now, huh?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 04:07:15 pm
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)
It is very deep.
That depends on who it's directed at.
Very true.
Who is being deep now, huh?
I have no idea.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:08:09 pm
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)
It is very deep.
That depends on who it's directed at.
Very true.
Who is being deep now, huh?
I have no idea.
Me, stupid.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:14:31 pm
Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 01, 2004, 04:37:46 pm
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:46:04 pm
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...

I have seriously not been doing this to boost post numbers. I am not quite THAT sad a person.  :) I have done a lot of politically oriented posting as well. You shouldn't accuse people of being non-serious like that. Everyone who has done a suffcient amount of serious posting has proven themselves, as I see it. There are people like John or mr_president who could be accused on only non-serious posts. Also, one could easily say that it is wrong to post a lot of short posts instead of fewer, but larger ones. I think few people here are in the forum to achieve high post numbers. Do you?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 01, 2004, 04:58:49 pm
No wasn't accusing you of it.  Was thinking john and Mr Prez when I wrote that, and who knows there motives????? :)

I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...

I have seriously not been doing this to boost post numbers. I am not quite THAT sad a person.  :) I have done a lot of politically oriented posting as well. You shouldn't accuse people of being non-serious like that. Everyone who has done a suffcient amount of serious posting has proven themselves, as I see it. There are people like John or mr_president who could be accused on only non-serious posts. Also, one could easily say that it is wrong to post a lot of short posts instead of fewer, but larger ones. I think few people here are in the forum to achieve high post numbers. Do you?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 05:04:03 pm
No wasn't accusing you of it.  Was thinking john and Mr Prez when I wrote that, and who knows there motives????? :)

I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...

I have seriously not been doing this to boost post numbers. I am not quite THAT sad a person.  :) I have done a lot of politically oriented posting as well. You shouldn't accuse people of being non-serious like that. Everyone who has done a suffcient amount of serious posting has proven themselves, as I see it. There are people like John or mr_president who could be accused on only non-serious posts. Also, one could easily say that it is wrong to post a lot of short posts instead of fewer, but larger ones. I think few people here are in the forum to achieve high post numbers. Do you?

That is actually a very good question. I have been pondering it for a long time. I am beginning to wonder whether one should actually feel sorry for them, maybe they're just uneducated or foreign or young or a combination of these. It just doesn't make sense, why would someone join a forum like this just to piss people off?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 06:27:13 pm
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)
It is very deep.
That depends on who it's directed at.
Very true.
Who is being deep now, huh?
I have no idea.
Me, stupid.
18.  of course, my quote applies to everyone.
No one should ever be stupid.
We'd have many fewer problems in this world if people heeded my quote. :)
That's actually right. :) Too bad noone ever thought about that before, huh? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 06:53:25 pm
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 06:55:44 pm
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 07:01:00 pm
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*
Yeah, I guess we both did.  But I didn't to them to increase my posts, I did them for fun.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 07:02:20 pm
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*
Yeah, I guess we both did.  But I didn't to them to increase my posts, I did them for fun.
That's what we all say... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 07:03:19 pm
Right.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 02, 2004, 07:16:43 pm
Right.

It is...but let's try and focus this one, shall we? :) I currently have three predictions going, all of them show GOP-victories. My main prob is not seeing enough polls and not knowing about all of the events influencing voters. Swedish media don't pay a lot of attention to American politics, though they will later on, when elections come closer.

America really is a different world, actually much more so than I originally thought. Sports, politics, everything except TV, I guess, is different.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 02, 2004, 07:34:42 pm
Right.

It is...but let's try and focus this one, shall we? :) I currently have three predictions going, all of them show GOP-victories. My main prob is not seeing enough polls and not knowing about all of the events influencing voters. Swedish media don't pay a lot of attention to American politics, though they will later on, when elections come closer.

America really is a different world, actually much more so than I originally thought. Sports, politics, everything except TV, I guess, is different.
Polls mean nothing at this point.  believe me.  Look at 1980 and 1992.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Carey on January 03, 2004, 10:02:05 am
ok, this Australian (who, even though he leans left, will be neutral here, due to it not being my decidion) has compiled a realistic "best case scenario" for Reps and "best case scenario" for Dems. A landslide is possiblke for both sides if they play their cards right, but their will be no McGovernish losses for either side, due to the polarisation of America at the mo.

For the Democratic Best Case Scenario: Carey
For the Republican Best Case Scenario: Carey2

I apologise if I made a mistake with the shades of certain states, I was kinda rushing.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 03, 2004, 10:23:07 am
ok, this Australian (who, even though he leans left, will be neutral here, due to it not being my decidion) has compiled a realistic "best case scenario" for Reps and "best case scenario" for Dems. A landslide is possiblke for both sides if they play their cards right, but their will be no McGovernish losses for either side, due to the polarisation of America at the mo.

For the Democratic Best Case Scenario: Carey
For the Republican Best Case Scenario: Carey2

I apologise if I made a mistake with the shades of certain states, I was kinda rushing.

Seems reasonable to me. You have a lot of tossups in both cases, and you let all of them go to the winning party, but otherwise they seemed accurate to me. Why don't you make one which is not best-worse, but the one you think will occur? ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Carey on January 03, 2004, 10:40:35 am
ok, this Australian (who, even though he leans left, will be neutral here, due to it not being my decidion) has compiled a realistic "best case scenario" for Reps and "best case scenario" for Dems. A landslide is possiblke for both sides if they play their cards right, but their will be no McGovernish losses for either side, due to the polarisation of America at the mo.

For the Democratic Best Case Scenario: Carey
For the Republican Best Case Scenario: Carey2

I apologise if I made a mistake with the shades of certain states, I was kinda rushing.

Seems reasonable to me. You have a lot of tossups in both cases, and you let all of them go to the winning party, but otherwise they seemed accurate to me. Why don't you make one which is not best-worse, but the one you think will occur? ;)

well to answer the tossup point, in a best case scenario, all of the tossups would go to the winner.

Secondly, the realistic one I will do as soon as a nominee is clear (and no, Howard Dean has not won it, and I would not be surprised if he doesn't get the nom)

plus I am afraid of being wrong ;) lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 10:44:00 am
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...

That's quite and insteresting site.
He's baaaack!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 03, 2004, 10:44:42 am
ok, this Australian (who, even though he leans left, will be neutral here, due to it not being my decidion) has compiled a realistic "best case scenario" for Reps and "best case scenario" for Dems. A landslide is possiblke for both sides if they play their cards right, but their will be no McGovernish losses for either side, due to the polarisation of America at the mo.

For the Democratic Best Case Scenario: Carey
For the Republican Best Case Scenario: Carey2

I apologise if I made a mistake with the shades of certain states, I was kinda rushing.

Seems reasonable to me. You have a lot of tossups in both cases, and you let all of them go to the winning party, but otherwise they seemed accurate to me. Why don't you make one which is not best-worse, but the one you think will occur? ;)

well to answer the tossup point, in a best case scenario, all of the tossups would go to the winner.

Secondly, the realistic one I will do as soon as a nominee is clear (and no, Howard Dean has not won it, and I would not be surprised if he doesn't get the nom)

plus I am afraid of being wrong ;) lol

Good points, no one seem to agreee with me on tossups anyway, so never mind that...

I agree Dean has not clinched it yet, but if he beats Gephardt in Iowa he will be hard to stop. There are other threads for this, though, so you can post there if you're interested in discussing that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 10:45:58 am
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 12:09:50 pm
But after 2 weeks fo free air time and 2 wins by Dean, the media coverage will be huge for him and will eliminate Clark too.


The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 12:25:19 pm
But after 2 weeks fo free air time and 2 wins by Dean, the media coverage will be huge for him and will eliminate Clark too.


The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.
Clark won't be eliminated by then.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 03, 2004, 01:04:58 pm
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 01:09:36 pm
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.
Well, that's their last chance.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 03, 2004, 01:10:48 pm
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.
Well, that's their last chance.
Then when Dean is nominated they then can watch the party run off a cliff.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 01:11:30 pm
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.
Well, that's their last chance.
Then when Dean is nominated they then can watch the party run off a cliff.
Say what you may, yay!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 03, 2004, 01:12:38 pm
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.
Well, that's their last chance.
Then when Dean is nominated they then can watch the party run off a cliff.
Say what you may, yay!
It's true all the smart Dems know it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 01:15:44 pm
So I'm a stupid Dem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 03:35:14 pm
Miami Miami Miami, look at your last post.  Talk about leaving the door WIDE Open to a comment :)

Well Stu Rothenberg was on C-SPAN a while ago discussing Politics at American University and it was very informative check it out if you can on replay.

Detailed Presidential and Senate races.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on January 03, 2004, 03:47:24 pm
You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 03:50:29 pm
Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!


You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 04:45:47 pm
Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!


You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.
Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 06:33:18 pm
wake up! Miami, your dreaming again!


Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!


You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.
Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 06:37:09 pm
wake up! Miami, your dreaming again!


Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!


You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.
Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.
Why's that?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 06:43:00 pm
nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 06:46:16 pm
nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
they have the D, the running game, and a efficient quarterback.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 03, 2004, 08:48:16 pm
I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 09:03:07 pm
I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?
I do think that those three states will go republican this year.  They were very close in 2000 and expect the small swing to bush in 2004 to makes those states go Republican.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 03, 2004, 09:12:11 pm
I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?
I do think that those three states will go republican this year.  They were very close in 2000 and expect the small swing to bush in 2004 to makes those states go Republican.

I'm tempted to agree. Still, I have a feeling Nevada, West Virginia and NH could go Dem, which may balance this out; even though that obviously isn't reflected by the average prediction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 09:28:59 pm
I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?
I do think that those three states will go republican this year.  They were very close in 2000 and expect the small swing to bush in 2004 to makes those states go Republican.

I'm tempted to agree. Still, I have a feeling Nevada, West Virginia and NH could go Dem, which may balance this out; even though that obviously isn't reflected by the average prediction.
Nevada and WV might but I don't think NH will.  And that doesn't exactly balance it out, see the electoral vote totals:

NM: 5
Iowa: 7
Wisconsin: 10
----
NH: 4
WV: 5
Nevada: 5


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 2,868,691 on January 03, 2004, 09:42:08 pm
dont forget AR--6 more votes, and a chance at OH--20


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 09:45:38 pm
dont forget AR--6 more votes, and a chance at OH--20
Arkansas is a distant chance, and Ohio will be tough, but it is winnable.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 03, 2004, 09:51:37 pm
Ohio may well prove to be a key state. However, assuming Dean is the candidate, would a socially conservative state like Ohio vote for someone like him? It's very doubtful if I'm honest.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 10:01:06 pm
Ohio may well prove to be a key state. However, assuming Dean is the candidate, would a socially conservative state like Ohio vote for someone like him? It's very doubtful if I'm honest.
It is doubtful, but KEEP HOPE ALIVE.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 03, 2004, 11:13:04 pm
Don't forget about Minn.  It could very easily go Bush with a regular Democrat running, let alone Dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: LibPa on January 03, 2004, 11:54:13 pm
Has anyone paid attention to the 2003 elections?  Louisiana and Pa being more Dem. and Kentucky and Miss. going Rep?  What was the difference?  In Pa., more minority voters in the cities did come out, but that is only part of the story.  Lancaster, York, Adams, Dauphin - combined equals Philly - voted more Rep. than ever.  The other small cities and the rural industrial areas voted more Dem than ever.  These areas have not gained new voters, nor the Reps. lost votes.  Inactive Dems. came out this year to boost Dem. totals.  These blue collar voters came to vote for an unashamedly pro-choice, liberal Democrat in Baer.  They are not conservative, they will vote for a real Dem or not vote at all.  Southern Evangelicals have become more and more of a Rep. certainty (a danger to them in itself), but the rural blue collar Catholic areas of Ohio, Pa., and Michigan do not have new Rep. votes, only many Dems. who just don't vote.  They come out for the genuine article.  (Baer is not Catholic, so it wasn't that.)  If their turnout is decent, Ohio is Dem in 2004.  That is just enough, is it not?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 03, 2004, 11:56:34 pm
Yep.  Sounds like Dean has the election all wrapped up.  Nominate him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 03, 2004, 11:58:27 pm
Has anyone paid attention to the 2003 elections?  Louisiana and Pa being more Dem. and Kentucky and Miss. going Rep?  What was the difference?  In Pa., more minority voters in the cities did come out, but that is only part of the story.  Lancaster, York, Adams, Dauphin - combined equals Philly - voted more Rep. than ever.  The other small cities and the rural industrial areas voted more Dem than ever.  These areas have not gained new voters, nor the Reps. lost votes.  Inactive Dems. came out this year to boost Dem. totals.  These blue collar voters came to vote for an unashamedly pro-choice, liberal Democrat in Baer.  They are not conservative, they will vote for a real Dem or not vote at all.  Southern Evangelicals have become more and more of a Rep. certainty (a danger to them in itself), but the rural blue collar Catholic areas of Ohio, Pa., and Michigan do not have new Rep. votes, only many Dems. who just don't vote.  They come out for the genuine article.  (Baer is not Catholic, so it wasn't that.)  If their turnout is decent, Ohio is Dem in 2004.  That is just enough, is it not?

Hi! Welcome to the forum.  Luisiana has a long tradition of going Dem. in state-wide races, so I don't see any big revelation there.  As for Ohio, I would arguee you there.  Ohio has a long Republican tradiotion and many former Dems now vote Rep.  As for PA, we are one of the weirdest states in the country when it comes to elections, so who knows?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 06:17:51 am
I think the Dems should concentrate on a few big key states. Pennsylvania and Ohio would be there, and then throw in WV with them. Then, what about Florida? If the Dems went all out and won these three, they could afford losing all other "losable" states and still win.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 2,868,691 on January 04, 2004, 11:43:54 am
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 11:53:30 am
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.
Yes, those are losable states, as are the entire upper midwestern states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 12:39:30 pm
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 12:49:32 pm
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 02:04:40 pm
Dean has the north east in the bag (including PA).  All he needs to do is to concentrate in the Mid-West and some of the swing souths to win.  

The Dems will never again sweep the south.  I think we need to let that dream die and fight the good fight in the north.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mtwhitney on January 04, 2004, 02:23:31 pm
The States that Bush won in 2000 have picked up 7 electoral votes, mainly due to an increase in population in the South and the Sunbelt. This trend does not seem to be turning around anytime soon.

If you guys abandon those areas, you will be consigning yourself to permanent minority status.

Not that I would care.

Clinton found a way to stay competitive in those areas. I would suggest that if the Dems have any hope of regaining the White House, they should look to the DLC and not to the turncoat Gore (who could not even win his own State!) and his new pal Dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 02:28:53 pm
The States that Bush won in 2000 have picked up 7 electoral votes, mainly due to an increase in population in the South and the Sunbelt. This trend does not seem to be turning around anytime soon.

If you guys abandon those areas, you will be consigning yourself to permanent minority status.

Not that I would care.

Clinton found a way to stay competitive in those areas. I would suggest that if the Dems have any hope of regaining the White House, they should look to the DLC and not to the turncoat Gore (who could not even win his own State!) and his new pal Dean.


You have a point, but let's remember that a Democrat win is still within reach. Much of Bush's pickup came in states that could easily go Dem, like Florida, Nevada and Arizona. So there is no need to get desperate just yet. As I said, for now, winning the steel states + Florida should be the main focus for the Dem campaign. If Florida is out of reach, as I suspect it might be, then they will have to rethink and go for the mid-west and south-west instead (NM, NV, WI, MN, etc).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on January 04, 2004, 02:58:36 pm
Bush Might win the Same States he won in 2000 & Pick Up Three or More States like Iowa, MINN, Wiscons, That's the best i could spelled


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 03:10:27 pm
Bush Might win the Same States he won in 2000 & Pick Up Three or More States like Iowa, MINN, Wiscons, That's the best i could spelled

You're longing to give it up aren't you? Come on, start to contribute instead of goofing around.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 03:16:00 pm
Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 03:21:33 pm
Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.

He is fooling around. I am sure of it now. He mixes comprehendible statements with complete rubbish. Also, if he just had bad grammar, he could see how we spell certain words and do the same. And he seems to be able to read our posts, so he should be able to do that. For a short while I was beginning to suspect that the guy honestly couldn't spell, but now I think he is just messing with us.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 03:27:31 pm
Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.

He is fooling around. I am sure of it now. He mixes comprehendible statements with complete rubbish. Also, if he just had bad grammar, he could see how we spell certain words and do the same. And he seems to be able to read our posts, so he should be able to do that. For a short while I was beginning to suspect that the guy honestly couldn't spell, but now I think he is just messing with us.
I think I agree with you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 2,868,691 on January 04, 2004, 03:28:23 pm
Dean has the north east in the bag (including PA).  All he needs to do is to concentrate in the Mid-West and some of the swing souths to win.  

The Dems will never again sweep the south.  I think we need to let that dream die and fight the good fight in the north.

Though I don't think we'd sweep the South, FL, AR, TN, LA, and MO (and NC if Edwards is on the ticket) are definitely in play.  never give up on those, as those states might be the key.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on January 04, 2004, 03:40:14 pm
I think that this discussion centers too much around the assumption that the 2004 election will be reasonably similar to the 2000 election, with the 2000 election therefore serving as the baseline for predictions about 2004.

It may turn out that way, but I don't think so.

Think about the differences between the 1968 and 1972 elections.  In 1968, Republican Nixon barely beat traditional Democrat Humphrey, who was serving as VP to then-Pres. Lyndon Johnson.  The Democrats had been in power 8 years, and the economy was doing well, but the country was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, among other things.

There was also a third party candidacy that year, with George Wallace winning several southern states with his quasi-segregationist message.  It is questionable who would have won those states in the absence of the Wallace candidacy, since the south then was still very reluctant to vote Republican, and in some states, Nixon came in third, behind Wallace and Humphrey.

Come 1972, the situation was radically different.  The economy was doing well, having gone through a recession in the 1969-71 period.  The Vietnam War was all but over for the United States, although tragically this was not the case for the Vietnamese.  In his re-election bid, Nixon faced an opponent at the far left of the Democratic Party, rather than a traditional Democrat as in 1968.

In short, the political landscape had radically changed, and it would have been foolish to base 1972 calculations on the 1968 political landscape.  Nixon went on to comfortably win states that he couldn't have dreamed of carrying in 1968.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?  I'd say a lot fewer than would have trusted it to Al Gore in 2000.

I don't think Bush will win on the scale that Nixon did in 1972, and it's probably better if he didn't (look what happened to Nixon!) but I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 03:40:44 pm
NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 04, 2004, 04:57:51 pm
Well clark took himself out of VP race today, slamming the door on the South for Dems.

NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 05:07:21 pm
I think that this discussion centers too much around the assumption that the 2004 election will be reasonably similar to the 2000 election, with the 2000 election therefore serving as the baseline for predictions about 2004.

It may turn out that way, but I don't think so.

Think about the differences between the 1968 and 1972 elections.  In 1968, Republican Nixon barely beat traditional Democrat Humphrey, who was serving as VP to then-Pres. Lyndon Johnson.  The Democrats had been in power 8 years, and the economy was doing well, but the country was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, among other things.

There was also a third party candidacy that year, with George Wallace winning several southern states with his quasi-segregationist message.  It is questionable who would have won those states in the absence of the Wallace candidacy, since the south then was still very reluctant to vote Republican, and in some states, Nixon came in third, behind Wallace and Humphrey.

Come 1972, the situation was radically different.  The economy was doing well, having gone through a recession in the 1969-71 period.  The Vietnam War was all but over for the United States, although tragically this was not the case for the Vietnamese.  In his re-election bid, Nixon faced an opponent at the far left of the Democratic Party, rather than a traditional Democrat as in 1968.

In short, the political landscape had radically changed, and it would have been foolish to base 1972 calculations on the 1968 political landscape.  Nixon went on to comfortably win states that he couldn't have dreamed of carrying in 1968.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?  I'd say a lot fewer than would have trusted it to Al Gore in 2000.

I don't think Bush will win on the scale that Nixon did in 1972, and it's probably better if he didn't (look what happened to Nixon!) but I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 05:34:40 pm
Well clark took himself out of VP race today, slamming the door on the South for Dems.

NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.
I still think he may accept if he is offered the job.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 06:11:17 pm
Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 06:13:51 pm
Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.
That's why I have openly suported Russ Feingold.  This election will be decided in the midwest, and Feingold's the midwestern man!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 06:16:30 pm
Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.

You're probably right. I thought Missouri was in the south, but I'm a foreigner....

Still, if you pick up Ohio, and loses NM, you will still lose the election. If you lose OR, IA, WI and MN you could lose the whole thing if you don't have anything to make it up with.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on January 04, 2004, 06:36:19 pm

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?

No, I think that states with a higher percentage voting Democratic, or Republican, will remain largely the same as 2000.  I don't think Massachusetts is suddenly going to turn strongly Republican, or Texas is going to turn Democratic.

But I do think the dynamics are very different this time than in 2000, and that Bush will win much more comfortably than he did last time.  I don't for example believe that Florida will be the ultimate swing state; I think it will be safely Republican this time.  But we'll see.  I never make bold predictions this far out, especially when we don't know the Democratic nominee.  Primaries can bring a lot of surprises.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 06:40:56 pm
Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.

You're probably right. I thought Missouri was in the south, but I'm a foreigner....

Still, if you pick up Ohio, and loses NM, you will still lose the election. If you lose OR, IA, WI and MN you could lose the whole thing if you don't have anything to make it up with.



I guess Missouri can be said to be in the south, but it all depends.  Most people say that Maryland is in the north east, although technically it is a southern state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 06:44:28 pm

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?

No, I think that states with a higher percentage voting Democratic, or Republican, will remain largely the same as 2000.  I don't think Massachusetts is suddenly going to turn strongly Republican, or Texas is going to turn Democratic.

But I do think the dynamics are very different this time than in 2000, and that Bush will win much more comfortably than he did last time.  I don't for example believe that Florida will be the ultimate swing state; I think it will be safely Republican this time.  But we'll see.  I never make bold predictions this far out, especially when we don't know the Democratic nominee.  Primaries can bring a lot of surprises.

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on January 04, 2004, 06:58:12 pm

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

I think it's more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will be toss-ups than Florida.  I think that Bush will hold onto all the states he won in 2000, with a bigger margin of victory, and pick up some states that Gore carried that year.  The only question is how many.

The first "tier" of states that he could pick up are states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico, all of which he lost narrowly to Gore.  The next tier would be states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the third tier would be states like Illinois, New Jersey and California.

I don't know how far he'll go, but I don't think we'll be quibbling in 2004 over the same states that we quibbled over in 2000.

The election is ten months away and that's a long time, so I have to qualify my predictions.  I also have to say that they are based on the assumption that Dean will get the Democratic nomination.  It would be significantly different with Clark, Gephardt or Lieberman.

But if Dean is nominated, it's hard to imagine him picking up any state that Bush won in 2000.  Dean is the candidate for a nasty vocal minority.  They may be loud and obnoxious, but they can't carry a general election, and they'll drive away moderate voters in droves.  That is my prediction, so I would say forget Florida, Nevada and West Virginia too.  Worry about Dean winning Michigan, Pennsyvania, California and New Jersey.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 09:26:46 pm
I think its important to realize that Gore wasn't the only person to win states by a narrow margin.  Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and Louisiana were all fairly close.  Nevada too for that matter.

There's always room for growth, on both sides.  But you're right, this will be a very different election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 2,868,691 on January 04, 2004, 10:31:20 pm
Everyone must remember--Dean has not been nominated yet; when it gets down to just him and Clark it can very well go to Clark, putting MO, AR, TN, and LA easily back into play for the Dems, leading to a close Dem victory!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 05, 2004, 12:44:04 am
How do you see Oregon?  I see it as first tier too as it was clos ein 2000 also.  Plus GOP is pushing hard ther ei hear.



Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

I think it's more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will be toss-ups than Florida.  I think that Bush will hold onto all the states he won in 2000, with a bigger margin of victory, and pick up some states that Gore carried that year.  The only question is how many.

The first "tier" of states that he could pick up are states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico, all of which he lost narrowly to Gore.  The next tier would be states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the third tier would be states like Illinois, New Jersey and California.

I don't know how far he'll go, but I don't think we'll be quibbling in 2004 over the same states that we quibbled over in 2000.

The election is ten months away and that's a long time, so I have to qualify my predictions.  I also have to say that they are based on the assumption that Dean will get the Democratic nomination.  It would be significantly different with Clark, Gephardt or Lieberman.

But if Dean is nominated, it's hard to imagine him picking up any state that Bush won in 2000.  Dean is the candidate for a nasty vocal minority.  They may be loud and obnoxious, but they can't carry a general election, and they'll drive away moderate voters in droves.  That is my prediction, so I would say forget Florida, Nevada and West Virginia too.  Worry about Dean winning Michigan, Pennsyvania, California and New Jersey.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 05, 2004, 02:46:20 am
I have finally posted my map.  Thanks for making it easier, Dave.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 05, 2004, 05:08:11 am
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 05, 2004, 07:05:07 am
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansaw, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 07:39:08 am

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

I think it's more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will be toss-ups than Florida.  I think that Bush will hold onto all the states he won in 2000, with a bigger margin of victory, and pick up some states that Gore carried that year.  The only question is how many.

The first "tier" of states that he could pick up are states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico, all of which he lost narrowly to Gore.  The next tier would be states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the third tier would be states like Illinois, New Jersey and California.

I don't know how far he'll go, but I don't think we'll be quibbling in 2004 over the same states that we quibbled over in 2000.

The election is ten months away and that's a long time, so I have to qualify my predictions.  I also have to say that they are based on the assumption that Dean will get the Democratic nomination.  It would be significantly different with Clark, Gephardt or Lieberman.

But if Dean is nominated, it's hard to imagine him picking up any state that Bush won in 2000.  Dean is the candidate for a nasty vocal minority.  They may be loud and obnoxious, but they can't carry a general election, and they'll drive away moderate voters in droves.  That is my prediction, so I would say forget Florida, Nevada and West Virginia too.  Worry about Dean winning Michigan, Pennsyvania, California and New Jersey.

Again, you're assuming a clear Bush win. If that happens, obviously the Dems will not pick up much, and likely lose a lot instead. But I am assuming a close race, simply b/c if it isn't Bush will just win and there is less fun! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 05, 2004, 09:12:57 am
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 09:38:10 am
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.

The "we can win over their voters, but they cannot win over ours" seems a little biased, I must say.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 09:41:03 am
I have finally posted my map.  Thanks for making it easier, Dave.  :)

Well, at least you have distributed the tossups more or less equally... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 05, 2004, 12:25:49 pm
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.

Utter Rubbish?  I don't see any 'evidence' in your post either.  Just a claim.  If you refuse to accept voter's behavior in previous elections as evidence, then I suppose there's no evidence to say one state is more Republican and another more Democratic.  Perhaps Bush will sweep the Northeast while Dean will win a big majority in Texas.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 05, 2004, 12:43:25 pm
It would help if you actually read what I said.
Bush will not win Massachusetts or Rhode Island and the Democratic nominee will not win Texas.
However I see no reason why a Democrat can't win Mississippi and I see no reason why Bush can't win Maryland.

My main point is:

Most voters split tickets=non-polerised electorate HOWEVER most activists and elected officials are very partizan and very polerised.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 05, 2004, 01:09:20 pm
Dazzleman's comparison of Nixon's electoral fortunes to Bush's, as a caveat to comparing 2004 to 2000, are well taken.

Let us not forget, however, that McGovern was tranparently liberal and anti-war, while Dean attempts to sway with the breeze. Already we hear his apologists claiming what a moderate governor he was (as if Vermont politics somehow resembles national politics). And we have the sorry spectacle of Dean himself shamelessly pretending to have some religious side, misquoting the Bible in interviews meant to play to Southern audiences.

The point is, might not enough baby-boomer Democrats in the pivotal Democratic states, hungry for the White House, resentful of the 2000 victory, romanced by the youthful fervor of a Dean campaign, and lulled into complacency by successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, turn out for Dean?

Even without Florida, just a turnover in Nevada (the demographic there is rapidly changing) and New Hampshire (Dean's neighboring state) would bring us to an electoral tie.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?.....

I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 05, 2004, 01:25:11 pm

Even without Florida, just a turnover in Nevada (the demographic there is rapidly changing) and New Hampshire (Dean's neighboring state) would bring us to an electoral tie.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 05, 2004, 01:40:37 pm
The "new migrants" in Nevada that I'm thinking of are the middle class from California and Democratic states in the the East and MidWest, who have flooded the Las Vegas Valley in the last four years and would love to vote in a pivotal state in 2004.

And in New Hampshire, you have a growing Vermont-type youth culture gradually replacing the older, libertarian voter. Not to mention the Dean hordes from Burlington coming over to organize and spend the summer in the White Mountains.

I just don't think Republicans should be complacent against Dean.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 01:43:06 pm

Even without Florida, just a turnover in Nevada (the demographic there is rapidly changing) and New Hampshire (Dean's neighboring state) would bring us to an electoral tie.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.

What's the last part supposed to mean? That they are stupid and vote "wrongly" or what?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 05, 2004, 02:11:55 pm
NH Anti-tax and plus all polls with Dean way ahead of Dem field show him Way behind Bush.

Also they thought Jean Shaheeen would win and she didn't , Sen Sununu the GOP candidate won easily.

Next, Nev went all GOP in 2002 also, Gov in a landslide and GOP picked up new Congressional district.


The "new migrants" in Nevada that I'm thinking of are the middle class from California and Democratic states in the the East and MidWest, who have flooded the Las Vegas Valley in the last four years and would love to vote in a pivotal state in 2004.

And in New Hampshire, you have a growing Vermont-type youth culture gradually replacing the older, libertarian voter. Not to mention the Dean hordes from Burlington coming over to organize and spend the summer in the White Mountains.

I just don't think Republicans should be complacent against Dean.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 05, 2004, 06:33:26 pm
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 06:58:36 pm
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.

Eh...what is that last part supposed to mean? Bush is a conservative who would lose in a landslide if it wasn't for the annoying fact there are so many conservative voters! In fact, any candidate would lose in a landslide if they didn't have voters who shared their opinion! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 05, 2004, 10:16:52 pm
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.

Eh...what is that last part supposed to mean? Bush is a conservative who would lose in a landslide if it wasn't for the annoying fact there are so many conservative voters! In fact, any candidate would lose in a landslide if they didn't have voters who shared their opinion! :)

What I meant is that there is such a high concentration of far left voters in the NE and Pacific West that those states are sure to go for Dean and will probably be the only states to go to Dean.  Bush's support is msuch more spread out throughout the country.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 00tim on January 05, 2004, 10:54:46 pm
Presuming at this point that Dean is the nominee then Dean will only win 5 or 6 states. NY will certainly go for Dean and CA wouldn't be a surprise either but they did vote in Schwarzenegger but that is probably not enough to change the voting pattern. Dean will probably carry Vermont, Newhampshire and a couple of others that won't mean much. My overall prediction is that if Dean is the nominee this will be a very boring presidential election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 05, 2004, 11:22:27 pm
Uh, I wouldn't hold my breath that Bush will carry Maryland or the Dems will carry Georgia or Mississippi.  Opebo has it right when he says there is no evidence that consistent voting trends in these states are not going to hold this time.  There are many more Dems in Maryland and many more presidential Republicans in the deep South.  It is as simple as that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 05, 2004, 11:50:28 pm

Bill O'Reilly's prediction was 8 states for Dean.

Presuming at this point that Dean is the nominee then Dean will only win 5 or 6 states. NY will certainly go for Dean and CA wouldn't be a surprise either but they did vote in Schwarzenegger but that is probably not enough to change the voting pattern. Dean will probably carry Vermont, Newhampshire and a couple of others that won't mean much. My overall prediction is that if Dean is the nominee this will be a very boring presidential election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 06, 2004, 04:50:11 am
Uh, I wouldn't hold my breath that Bush will carry Maryland or the Dems will carry Georgia or Mississippi.  Opebo has it right when he says there is no evidence that consistent voting trends in these states are not going to hold this time.  There are many more Dems in Maryland and many more presidential Republicans in the deep South.  It is as simple as that.

But there is nothing to say that they can't.
That is the importent word. can't not won't


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 06, 2004, 04:51:49 am

Bill O'Reilly's prediction was 8 states for Dean.


I wouldn't trust someone from Faux News to speak my weight...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Carey on January 06, 2004, 09:07:22 am

Bill O'Reilly's prediction was 8 states for Dean.

Presuming at this point that Dean is the nominee then Dean will only win 5 or 6 states. NY will certainly go for Dean and CA wouldn't be a surprise either but they did vote in Schwarzenegger but that is probably not enough to change the voting pattern. Dean will probably carry Vermont, Newhampshire and a couple of others that won't mean much. My overall prediction is that if Dean is the nominee this will be a very boring presidential election.

Bill O'Reilly is a windbag, I'd take everything he and everybody else on that network says with a grain of salt.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 06, 2004, 10:10:43 am
I think we can number crunch all we want, but voter turnout will seriously effect the outcome. Regardless of whether or not Dean wins the Democratic nomination, he has energised a large portion of the liberal leaning electorate, who in the past rarely turned out to vote. A sustained youth/minority vote drive should be more successful this time around than in the recent past. One aspect many people over look is how much many Democratic voters WANT BUSH OUT, there is a thirst for gaining back the White House. Yes Howard Dean and authorist Michael Moore (who is a Clark backer) may be behind this, which doesn't make the DNC entirely comfortable, but it can be used effectively. If the turnout increases by even a handful of percent, and most of those votes go to the Demc, on state wide levels this could produce suprising results.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 00tim on January 06, 2004, 10:23:20 am
These people are always there, infact they are the most faithful to vote, it is just that their voice is louder this time around in the primaries. If his strategy works and he gets the nomination he is actually weakning his chances in becoming president.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 06, 2004, 12:01:35 pm
What are the chances that Democrats in the February and March primaries will realize Dean's potential weakness as a nominee, and pledge enough delegates to other candidates to throw the choice to the convention?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 06, 2004, 01:19:47 pm
I think that people overstate the difference between Dean and other potential Democratic nominees, based on subtle differences in their place on the ideological spectrum.  Ultimately it is not Dean's extreme leftism that makes him unelectable, it is his region - Leiberman would fare just as badly, and he's supposedly less left wing.  Interestingly, because the South is so strongly Republican now, I don't think nominating a Southerner would actually carry any southern states - for example I doubt Edwards could even carry North Carolina, just like Gore couldn't carry Tennessee.  The exception would be a very conservative Democrat like Zell Miller or John Breaux, but they're supposedly nearly Republican and could never make it through the primary.  

A southerner or midwesterner could carry swing states in the Midwest, however, like Ohio, Wisconsin, or Iowa.  Gephardt is supposed to be the candidate Karl Rove most fears.  I'd have to say however that Gephart is not a very good midwestern candidate, since I can report he's very unpopular in Missouri outside of St. Louis - I'm not at all sure he'd carry the state against Bush.  I doubt he could be elected governer of Missouri for example - voters outside St. Louis dislike St. Louis pols like the rest of the country dislikes Northeastners.  

 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 06, 2004, 06:09:57 pm
I think that people overstate the difference between Dean and other potential Democratic nominees, based on subtle differences in their place on the ideological spectrum.  Ultimately it is not Dean's extreme leftism that makes him unelectable, it is his region

Please don't brand Dean as an extremist. He might support civil unions and oppose the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean he's a raving communist. His views on gun control, or his fiscal policies as Govenor, are to the right of the Democratic party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 06, 2004, 09:44:54 pm
that would be awesome if dems have like a dean with the lead but have to take it to the convention.  Can see it already either dean splits or narrowly gets it and losta  ton of time and money fighting off rivals.


What are the chances that Democrats in the February and March primaries will realize Dean's potential weakness as a nominee, and pledge enough delegates to other candidates to throw the choice to the convention?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 06, 2004, 09:47:01 pm
But he also wants tax increases, wants massive regulations on business,  yes he balanced budget in VT ( half the size of Miami) and he had to raise taxes through the roof there to do it, and he wants to socialize medicine.



I think that people overstate the difference between Dean and other potential Democratic nominees, based on subtle differences in their place on the ideological spectrum.  Ultimately it is not Dean's extreme leftism that makes him unelectable, it is his region

Please don't brand Dean as an extremist. He might support civil unions and oppose the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean he's a raving communist. His views on gun control, or his fiscal policies as Govenor, are to the right of the Democratic party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 00tim on January 07, 2004, 09:22:37 am
With the economy going in the up direction it is going to be a tough sell to raise taxes, especially on the middle class.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 07, 2004, 10:46:34 am
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 10:48:05 am
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.
"of the mainstream candidates"??? Who are excluded, all actual left-wingers, or what?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 07, 2004, 12:03:51 pm
Yes if you are extrreme left or extreme right you are out of the mainstream.  Like kucinich, Dean, Sharpton and Braun way too far left.


The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.
"of the mainstream candidates"??? Who are excluded, all actual left-wingers, or what?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 07, 2004, 12:46:58 pm
I was excluding Kuchinich, Braun and Sharpton.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 07, 2004, 02:13:05 pm
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

I agree Realpolitik that Edwards is further left than he is percieved to be - and this goes to my point that people percieve candidates by their region more than their ideology.  Ideology can be hard to pin down, whereas a Southern accent automatically makes right wingers give you the benefit of the doubt, and left wingers view you with suspicion.  
Of course I see ALL Democrats as too left wing!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 07, 2004, 02:16:47 pm
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 02:20:42 pm
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 07, 2004, 02:24:32 pm
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 02:25:43 pm
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 07, 2004, 02:26:47 pm
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 02:31:22 pm
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?

My point. Let's take an example. I don't remember the American tax level, so I'll use other countries. In the UK, the overall taxation is 37% of GDP. In Sweden it is 53% of GDP. If a British party advocated higher taxes and a Swedish party advocated lower taxes, the Swedish party might be viewed as further to the right. However, if the Swedish party wants to cut taxes to, say 50% of GDP, and the British party wants to raise them to 40% of GDP, the Swedish party is still favouring a more leftist society. All I was saying is that this should be kept in mind when these comparisons are made. Look at where you're headed, not just the direction.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nonluddite on January 07, 2004, 09:35:27 pm

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

Yes, they're progressive, and have been since Bryan


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 08, 2004, 12:22:00 am
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?

My point. Let's take an example. I don't remember the American tax level, so I'll use other countries. In the UK, the overall taxation is 37% of GDP. In Sweden it is 53% of GDP. If a British party advocated higher taxes and a Swedish party advocated lower taxes, the Swedish party might be viewed as further to the right. However, if the Swedish party wants to cut taxes to, say 50% of GDP, and the British party wants to raise them to 40% of GDP, the Swedish party is still favouring a more leftist society. All I was saying is that this should be kept in mind when these comparisons are made. Look at where you're headed, not just the direction.  

I see what you are saying.  I guess that I am looking more at "immediatly" liberal than "overall" Liberal, if you know what I mean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 08, 2004, 12:57:41 am
Great site, great game.

This is so hard.     Bush is not the same moderate candidate that ran in 2000----and then not knowing which Dem gets the nod.  But this is like having 4 variables.  Bush A, Bush B, Dean, Clark.

Making a list of gray states, I came up with 10, which includes my own.
MO, NV, NH, MI, SC, OH, WI, FL IA, OR.

This list presumes Clark with the nomination.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 08, 2004, 02:04:26 am
I made a major change to my map when it comes to New York.  I have a hunch.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 00tim on January 08, 2004, 12:13:57 pm
Great site, great game.

This is so hard.     Bush is not the same moderate candidate that ran in 2000----and then not knowing which Dem gets the nod.  But this is like having 4 variables.  Bush A, Bush B, Dean, Clark.

Making a list of gray states, I came up with 10, which includes my own.
MO, NV, NH, MI, SC, OH, WI, FL IA, OR.

This list presumes Clark with the nomination.
I agree that if presuming that Clark is the nominee then there are more states in play than with Dean but I believe that Florida is off the list for any Dem this time around.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2004, 03:11:36 pm
The New Labour Group was a shortlived political grouping formed by some former Labour councillers on Hackney LBC.

Labour are basically the "blue collar wing"(ie: economically centre left and socially moderate) of the Democratic party, and Edwards fits that quite well.

I don't see how New York can be a tossup though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 08, 2004, 07:28:08 pm
There are indeed many wings of Labour, just are there are many different wings of the Democratic party (yes, even as wierd as LaRouche!) Labour and the Democrats fit neatly into the political spectrum as it exists today. Both parties 'exchange' representatives to shadow election campaigns, in fact Labour's Peter Mandelson is helping co-ordinate this years effort I believe. And I hope it is a success. Clinton advisors helped Labour get the right 'angle' for their spectacular 1997 campaign and this year they're returning the favour. It's just a shame that Tony Blair can't officially back the Democratic candidate, but I'm sure deep down he holds high opinions of Wesley Clark and other moderate Dems. The Neo-Cons can choke on that one!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jacob_101 on January 08, 2004, 07:54:28 pm
I agree somewhat with what you say about a candidate's region, and if Edwards were to get the nomination that could spell trouble in the South for Bush, especially since Bush seems to stray further to the center and away from the right wing with his policies.  I think Edwards is the most likeable and electable candidate of all the Democratic nominees.  But, does not look like he will get the nomination though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 08, 2004, 08:58:44 pm
Edwards is dead int he water, if he was ever started.

He is trailing Bush in his home state of NC by a wide margin and would offer little to a ticket, let alone nominee.

I agree somewhat with what you say about a candidate's region, and if Edwards were to get the nomination that could spell trouble in the South for Bush, especially since Bush seems to stray further to the center and away from the right wing with his policies.  I think Edwards is the most likeable and electable candidate of all the Democratic nominees.  But, does not look like he will get the nomination though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 08, 2004, 10:49:48 pm
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 09, 2004, 09:54:53 am
Edwards wouldn't need the South, but if he made Bush commit resources there that would be a strength for him. Like any Democrat, he simply needs a solid Northeast and Far West, combined with a good showing in the Great Lakes and Southwest.

I don't know if anyone agrees, but I'm beginning to sense the media souring on Dean this week. The New Republic endorsed Lieberman, and a number of NY Times articles have focused on Clark and Edwards, and on primary voters who are changing their minds about Dean. Perhaps the sharks are gathering now that his poll numbers are slipping in NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 09, 2004, 10:12:34 am
Dean is still way ahead in NH.  Clark has justy passed Kery but sutill is 20 pts behind Dean.

Don't you love how the news continues to make news?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 09, 2004, 11:06:52 am
Well, sure, lots of stories and analysis hatch in the political media, and if the mass media senses they have selling power they may pick up the ball.

Also, the campaigns themselves look to the political media for ideas and lines of attack.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 09, 2004, 12:51:58 pm
Edwards wouldn't need the South, but if he made Bush commit resources there that would be a strength for him. Like any Democrat, he simply needs a solid Northeast and Far West, combined with a good showing in the Great Lakes and Southwest.


I agree with agcat, Edwards couldn't carry North Carolina, much less any other Southern State.  Above you mention a 'good showing' in the Southwest and the Great Lakes.  I think the Great Lakes states that barely went for Gore in 2000 are not going to be any more or less likely to vote for Edwards than for some other Democrat.  

As for the good showing in the Southwest, I think that brings up an interesting point - many posted maps for a Democrat win include either Arizona, Colorado, or both.  This seems quite a stretch.   I'm the first to admit that New Mexico could easily go Democrat, but I doubt the other two will.  Does anyone have any information on why these two formerly very Republican states would change at this point?  Hispanics?  Surely it can't be escapees from California (I suspect those who flee CA are the Republicans from there).



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 09, 2004, 01:41:10 pm
Arizona-Went for Bush 51-45% despite Gore not campaigning there.  Likely Republican 2004 but not out of reach.

Colorado-Denver is liberal as hell, but the rest of the state is very conservative, so Republican for the near future.

New Mexico-Has gone Dem in recent Presidential Elections but drifting republican.  Will only go dem is Richardson is VP.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 09, 2004, 02:03:25 pm
I believe that the long term demographic in NM and NV favors the Democrats. Beyond Hispanics, there is a significant movement of young people and retirees, not only from CA, but from urban areas in the East, to fast growing towns like Las Vegas, Henderson, and Santa Fe. AZ and CO are not the same - their population centers have been established for a longer time and are more conservative - I wouldn't put them in the Democratic column unless the Democrats had a real edge nationally.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 09, 2004, 03:16:17 pm
Bush leads Dean and Clark by 9 in IL poll

January 9, 2004
By SARAH ANTONACCI of Copley News Service


SPRINGFIELD - With 10 months left before the presidential election, a Copley News Service poll finds that fewer than half of the respondents would vote to re-elect President George W. Bush, and his Democratic challengers have some work to do to get their names out to the voters.

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. of Washington, D.C., conducted the poll Monday through Wednesday, asking 625 registered Illinois voters across the state a variety of questions about the presidential election. Those questions involved candidate name recognition, favorable ratings and who voters would select if the election were held today.

The sample has a margin of error of 4 percent.

"There's no election right on top of this, so I wasn't terribly surprised by the results," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling and Research. "These numbers more than likely will change over time. It's changing on a daily basis.

"Bush is well known to all the voters in the state, and some of the Democratic candidates are not as well known. At least three of them are recognized by 90 percent of the voters. (John) Kerry and (Wesley) Clark are still blank slates to sizeable portions of the electorate."

The poll asked voters whether they recognized the names of Bush and of the five Democratic challengers generally considered the front-runners. The three Democrats voters generally recognized were U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (the 2000 vice presidential candidate) and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Jason Gerwig, a spokesman for Bush, said Thursday he considers the numbers promising for the president. The poll found that 42 percent of those surveyed view Bush favorably, 37 percent unfavorably and 21 percent were neutral.

"Looking at these numbers - and ones especially for the Democrats - for a state that people have written off as Democratic, these numbers show anything but," Gerwig said.

Dean spokesman Kevin Conlon said he looks at the name-recognition poll a little differently. Dean had a 20 percent favorable rating, 31 percent unfavorable and 40 percent neutral; 9 percent of respondents didn't recognize Dean's name.

"His unfavorables are less than Bush. That's comparable to other recent polls," Conlon said.

Illinois' primary isn't until March 16. As a result, many of the candidates haven't begun campaigning here. Instead, they are concentrating on states with earlier primaries.

That's why Conlon thinks the poll results are good for Dean.

"It's not the same as in Iowa, where he's been 100 times. We're very confident that when the voters of Illinois get to know him more and more, he will do even better," Conlon said. "We feel good about those results, and we feel confident that we put together a wonderful slate of candidates and we have every reason to think we can prevail."

Dean is generally considered the Democrat to beat in the early primaries.

Coker said Illinois has a history of leaning toward Democratic candidates, but it will be interesting to watch Dean when he begins to campaign here. Dean has been targeting Democratic activists in primary states, Coker said.

"He's taken a calculated gamble to go left to win the nomination and then work his way toward the middle by fall," Coker said. "Dean's unfavorable rating (in the Copley poll) is almost as high as Bush's. That's something to ponder should he become a nominee."

The poll also asked voters who they would vote for when each of the five leading Democrats were matched head-to-head with Bush.

Bush beat them all, but never with a majority of the entire survey. His margins ranged from 9 percent (over Dean and Clark) to as low as 4 percent (over Lieberman and Gephardt).

"I'm not surprised, with the state's political leanings, that his leads are only small," Coker said.

Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for Lieberman, said the poll numbers show Democrats, especially his candidate, are running strong in Illinois.

"These results show that Joe Lieberman is in the best position possible to beat Bush in the general election," he said.

The poll did not consider four other Democratic candidates who are running behind in polls: U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Al Sharpton, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Bill Buck, a spokesman for Clark, said he views the head-to-head numbers as strong for his candidate because he's someone "whose only been running for president since September against a sitting president in a state he's never campaigned in."

Poll respondents also were asked if they thought Bush is doing a good job as president. On that question, 49 percent ranked his performance "good" or "excellent," 27 percent said "fair," 23 percent said "poor" and 1 percent were undecided.

Gerwig said those numbers are encouraging for the president.

"If you take the people who thought he was doing a fair job, that adds up to 76 percent," he said. "These are great numbers."

Pollsters also asked voters if they approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. Fifty percent said they do, 41 percent do not and 9 percent were undecided. In a similar question on the economy, 44 percent expressed approval, 46 percent disapproval and 10 percent were undecided.

"It is early, and this is by no means a snapshot of what we'll see in November," Gerwig said. "The fact that the numbers are so good for the president so early on, when no one is really thinking about the race, is encouraging."



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 09, 2004, 03:21:42 pm
Dean would still win Illinois easily.  In April Polling here in NY, Gephardt trailed Bush by 16%.  Now, Dean has a 5% lead here.

At this time 24 years ago: Carter-62% Reagan 33%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 09, 2004, 03:31:19 pm
only 300 votes different in 2000, plus GOP picked upa  house seat there i believe.

Still think it would have went GOP if FL wasn't called early, as many have specualted nationally.

Arizona-Went for Bush 51-45% despite Gore not campaigning there.  Likely Republican 2004 but not out of reach.

Colorado-Denver is liberal as hell, but the rest of the state is very conservative, so Republican for the near future.

New Mexico-Has gone Dem in recent Presidential Elections but drifting republican.  Will only go dem is Richardson is VP.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 09, 2004, 03:33:24 pm
Are you talking about Illinois in the 200 presidential race?  Because that is what I'm talking about and I'm not sure you are. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 09, 2004, 03:34:54 pm
i was talking NM, in response to the post about it.  See I quoted it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 09, 2004, 03:35:38 pm
Illinois- just wait until they get to know Dean! :)  and his unfavorables are already aheado f his favorable, not a good sign for him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 09, 2004, 03:36:17 pm
Ahh, okay.

With your strange quoting policy I get confused.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 10, 2004, 08:11:13 pm
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 10, 2004, 08:12:48 pm
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Edwards still gets beat into the ground.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 10, 2004, 08:17:19 pm
agcat,

agcat, read Al Franken's book. That's an eye-popper.

This is kind of like 1972. No liberals knew of anyone who was supporting Nixon and were shocked election night.

I support Franken. The more books he sells, the further isolated Dems become from the mainstream voter.  It happened to conservatives in 1996.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 10, 2004, 08:28:59 pm
agcat,

agcat, read Al Franken's book. That's an eye-popper.

This is kind of like 1972. No liberals knew of anyone who was supporting Nixon and were shocked election night.

I support Franken. The more books he sells, the further isolated Dems become from the mainstream voter.  It happened to conservatives in 1996.

That is called an echo chamber.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 10, 2004, 10:46:25 pm
I'll graph my predictions when I get a chance, but here are my detailed predictions. This assumes no earth-shattering events between now and Nov. '04 and the Dems nominating either Dean or Gephardt and a competitive race.

Solid Dem: VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, CA, WA, HI, IL

Solid GOP: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, ID, MT, WY, UT, AK, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, LA, IN

Lean Dem:

Maine
New Mexico (Gore won barely in '00 and a Hispanic Dem was solidly elected Governor--should be able to turn out Hispanics on election day)
Pennsylvania (more competitive if Dean is the nominee)
Michigan (ditto for MI)

Lean GOP:

Colorado
Tennessee
Florida (it'll be very close, but I must sadly say it leans GOP due to increased GOP registration and a solid win for Jeb Bush in 2002)
Nevada (a bit more competitive due to Yucca Mountain and an increasing Hispanic population)
Arizona (though more Democratic than in '00)

Tossup:

NH: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
MO: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
IA: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
WV: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
AR: Lean GOP, though highly competitive if Clark gets VP
OH: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
MN: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
WI: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
OR: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep

I figured Dean would overperform in states Nader did well in in 2000 (MN, WI, OR) and Gephardt would do well in his home state and in states with a high union population (MI, OH, PA, WV).

Dean isn't even all that popular among Dems in NH.  He's not running away with the primary and the state has shown no support for candidates that want to raise taxes as Dean has vowed to do by repealing Bush's tax cuts to pay for new social spending.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 10, 2004, 10:49:11 pm
Tennessee is going to be close(again) and is certainly going to be worth a watch.
I'm curious as wether or the interesting voting patterns displayed in the state in the 2002 gubernatorial election will be repeated.

That a conservative Democrat can win statewide in TN? Sure. Too bad there aren't any on the presidential ballot this November.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on January 10, 2004, 11:29:36 pm
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Do you have a source/link for the NC info?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 11, 2004, 01:47:28 pm
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Do you have a source/link for the NC info?
Yeah, you got a link?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:39:39 pm
Actually Goldwater won Louisiana in 1964.
Also, I don't think that Clark would lose Arkansas if he were nominated.

Pryor ran almost as an ideological soulmate of Bush-- like Landrieu did.  Reps. Berry and Ross and Sen. Lincoln supported the war resolution. My guess is that Pryor would have voted in favor.   Clark can be painted as a liberal and that's bad news in any state in the South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:43:02 pm
I just added my map today.  It's nothing special, just the 2000 results with NH, WV, and NV switiching to the Ds.  I assumed Dean would be the nominee, but I'm personally pulling for Gephardt.

What is it with people thinking New Hampshire loves Howard Dean? Most voters here had no idea who he was.  If we follow the political goings-on of another state, it's Massachusetts.  Dean barely won re-election in 2000 in Vermont.  He couldn't be elected governor of New Hampshire, and yet, somehow he can win the state's electoral votes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:44:32 pm
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41

Right except 56-41 for Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:47:23 pm
I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.

Blacks make up half of the Democrat primary voting population in SC.   This poll would have to have a ridiculous number of black voters in the sample for the results to overrepresent the black vote.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 11, 2004, 04:49:03 pm
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41

Right except 56-41 for Bush.
Bush 51% Dean 47%
Bush 334 Dean 204


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:49:34 pm
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41
Shut up! You always say Dean will win. And you give nothing to back it up. If you're going to say Dean will win, thats fine. But I notice you spread this in all the threads, as if Dean is already nominated. Explain yourself, and I won't be so mean.

Dean has the support of major unions and the ultra left.  The will help him win the nom.

The story of Dean's union support has been the most underreported story of this whole Democrat campaign season.  He's done incredibly well stealing union support from Gephardt.  Everyone talks about the beer drinkers versus the wine drinkers (Gephardt's supporters versus Dean's), but Dean has plenty of Gephardt's beer drinkers in his fold, too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:50:49 pm
Dean will win the nomination and go down in November something like 54 - 46.  Pretty substantial win considering we are a 50 - 50 nation.


I think the GOP won 53% of all votes cast in the 2002 midterms.  That's pretty close to 54% and not at all shocking or unexpected.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:52:28 pm
I'd say I've seen analysists predict the black turnout in SC could be as high as 49%


I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.

Yep, that's a very good approximation.  It could even be higher if Bush is as strong among white male voters as it has been thought. They won't show up to participate and the raw number of blacks voting won't change, but their power goes up.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:55:01 pm
Greetings from the Empire State:

Well, things are heating up in this presidential campaign, and Gore endorsing Dean puts him in a very good position.  But its still early and anything could happen.   Some of my political friends think that with this endorsement, Dean may clinch the nomination, however I think they maybe jumping the gun a little.  

Personally, I am excited about the possibility of a Dean - Clark ticket, or vice versa.  If these two are on the same ticket then the Dems have the best shot at winning the White House.  The Dems still need to realize that they need Southern Electoral Votes in order to win the election.    

See you all later.

Dean-Clark would be odder than an Oscar Madison-Felix Unger ticket.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:56:24 pm
Dean is reported to be obsessed with the South

It's hard to say which is a better strategy for Dem House and Senate candidates in the South this year-- having Dean try to improve his image there or staying the hell out of the region entirely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:58:06 pm
Bring on DEAn, esp after today!  

That is if the Dems don't dump him now too.

They  won't dump him they love him.

Time is starting to go way too slowly for my tastes. I see a Dean victory in my grasp and it's agonizing to watch him stumble to the finish line.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:01:30 pm
...or because GOP posters have been posting big GOP wins while Dem posters have been posting big Dem wins with their being a few more GOP posters than Dems posters...

Yeah, a whole lot of stupid predictions is just a whole lot of stupid predictions. A lot of people predicted the bubble wouldn't burst in Jan-Mar 2000, but they were all wrong.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:04:02 pm
I still think that Dean will not get the turnout from the middle Gore gotten.

PA Polls out this week have Bush over 50% vs everyone and 49% vs Dean.  

So yes Bush can still Carry PA , it was very close in 2000 and without PA, Dems are done.


Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.
Bush carry Pennsylvania? After lifting the foreign steel tariffs? That would be quite an accomplishment.

Many Democrats don't realize what a great candidate that Gore was.  They think he was a total loser and that any of the guys running can easily improve on Gore's performance.  That's hogwash. Gore did a great job of holding together all the interest groups that make up the Democrat Party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:04:50 pm
Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

Can't get a ride to The Improv?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:06:58 pm
Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

They care because they know their world and the real world revolves around us.  We don't have to follow what goes on in Canada or the EU or anywhere else particularly.  We'd know about who their rulers were if it mattered.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:09:37 pm
Humm I have some British friends too and they want Bush to win to keep the strong relationship with Blair.

REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH!

For the sake of the world, vote Bush-Cheney?

Let's print up the bumper stickers!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:12:49 pm
No, the French wouldn't elect an American come hell or high water, no matter how liberal!! He'd probably be right at home in the 'wet' wing (i.e liberal wing), of the Tory party. Even Dean isn't left enough for the Lib Dems or Labour, but I could easily see him being elected in Chipping Barnet :-)

Most people in Sweden think, quite rightly, that the Democrats pretty much correponds with the Swedish right, whereas the Republicans are off the edge! It can be seen, for example, that the Swedish left, left of centre, centre, right of centre and right hate Bush. The "conservative", or rather libertarian, right is split on whether to hate him or not.

I know what you mean. Jean-Marie le Pen is as anti-OIF as Chirac.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:28:48 pm
I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.

The Democrats won over 60% of the vote in WV in the last congressional election.
Every single elected state-wide official in WV has a little D next to his/her name.

The Republicans have a machine in Arkansas outside the Ozarks?
Huckabee is the only popular Republican in the state... and his popularity is waning.
TN is going to close(as always. Amazing what a bit of good ol' fashioned sectional voting can do...)

You are totally right about the AR-GOP. They are $323,000 in debt because the finance director took money from the party's accounts and generally did a poor job of informing the party how much money was available to spend on projects. The leadership of the AR-GOP has almost entirely been booted out.  Several Republicans have served briefly to fill in and Win has accepted the position of Chairman, but that's just a fill-in measure and no one expects him to run for re-election to the chairmanship the next time it's up for a vote. The state party is bankrupt and it's totally representitive of how the party is basicly Mike Huckabee and a guy with a great last name (Win Rockefeller) and that is it-- that's all there is. Mike has done what he can to bail out the party, but a bucket doesn't do much good on the Titanic. The RNC has offered to help pay staffers to keep the party operating.

As far as Bush's re-election, he'll have his own people working the state, so don't worry about his fortunes in the Natural State.  It's just too bad that statewide elections were in 2002 and not this year. They could have piggy-backed off Bush's machine.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:39:41 pm
I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.

The Democrats won over 60% of the vote in WV in the last congressional election.
Every single elected state-wide official in WV has a little D next to his/her name.

The Republicans have a machine in Arkansas outside the Ozarks?
Huckabee is the only popular Republican in the state... and his popularity is waning.
TN is going to close(as always. Amazing what a bit of good ol' fashioned sectional voting can do...)

Only one seat of the WV three is even contested by the GOP and Capito went from 51.4% of the 2-party vote in 2000 to 60.0% of the 2-party vote. The WV-GOP will happily take that trend.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:41:31 pm
Bush remains popular in Arkansas.  Last time I looked, Huckabee wasn't going to be on the presidential ballot.  Bush is on the ballot - and thank the lord his opponent is going to be Dean.  Write it down, Bush will carry Arkansas by at least 15 points.

Even if Huckabee were on the ballot, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Mike has carved his niche in Arkansas politics.  He'll end up having served as governor for 10 years. You don't get that on your resume by being unpopular.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:42:48 pm
Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democrat leaning state by 15%
Stop being partizan please...

BTW Dean has not won a single vote yet.


It's not a Democrat-leaning state. It's a state where Democrats run as conservatives and where the state GOP has never figured out how to get its act together.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:43:52 pm
Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.

He probably posted that to get a rise out of some Democrats here. I guess it worked.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:45:22 pm
Clark would win AR in a cakewalk, but I'm not sure about the others YET.

That's a ridiculous statement. Clark is a liberal.  He's not Mark Pryor. Just being from Arkansas won't give the state to Clark in a cakewalk.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:54:05 pm
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:57:12 pm
But deep south is not just about geography but cultural and values and way of life.

Even if you use that Arkansas is not in the Deep South(parts are, most are not)

What I think is interesting about AR is that it's de facto segregated.  Might as well slice the state into two separate states that only have a love of the Razorbacks in common.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:00:43 pm
I have been arguing that the South is cultural conservative and that's why they vote Republican - that that kind of cultural conservatism doesn't exist in Britain.  

"I'm sorry, we don't do God," as Blair's advisor said.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:02:39 pm
I doubt it.

Can't Dave check IP addresses for repeat trolls?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:08:24 pm
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If Dean runs the table in Iowa and NH as is expected, his numbers in every state will be boosted. Clark or anyone else trying to stop him has to be up on Dean in these states to beat back the surge that will come. Being tied isn't good enough.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:10:55 pm
Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.

Good call. One more weekend and you'll be quite the prognosticator.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:16:10 pm
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:19:17 pm
The States that Bush won in 2000 have picked up 7 electoral votes, mainly due to an increase in population in the South and the Sunbelt. This trend does not seem to be turning around anytime soon.

If you guys abandon those areas, you will be consigning yourself to permanent minority status.

Not that I would care.

Clinton found a way to stay competitive in those areas. I would suggest that if the Dems have any hope of regaining the White House, they should look to the DLC and not to the turncoat Gore (who could not even win his own State!) and his new pal Dean.


Exactly. It's not the South that is anti-Democrat, it is a case of the national Democrat Party of Dean and Pelosi and Daschle and Kennedy being anti-Democrat (as defined by Southern Democrats).  People like Breaux could do well in every Southern state. The Democrat Party has chosen to not support people like Lieberman who could win in the South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:33:39 pm
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Do you have a source/link for the NC info?
Yeah, you got a link?

Edwards' N.C. support up
Senator still trails Bush in state

By JOHN WAGNER, Washington Correspondent

Democrats in North Carolina are far more accepting of Sen. John Edwards' presidential bid, but he has made no progress convincing home-state Republicans that he should replace President Bush, according to a new poll commissioned by The News & Observer.
The poll, taken less than two weeks before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus, found that a majority of North Carolinians -- 55 percent -- approve of Edwards' White House bid, compared with 39 percent when he launched his candidacy a year ago.
The wider acceptance is due in large part to warmer feelings among fellow Tar Heel Democrats: 93 percent now approve of Edwards' run, compared with 67 percent a year ago, according to the survey by Research 2000 of Rockville, Md.

But the poll also showed Edwards continuing to face an uphill battle to beat Bush, if Edwards wins the nomination.

If the election were held today, Bush would prevail in the Tar Heel state, 53 percent to Edwards' 40 percent. Republicans would pick Bush over Edwards, 92 percent to 1 percent, the poll found. Edwards, meanwhile, would prevail among Democrats, 81 percent to 16 percent.

"Most North Carolinians now approve of Edwards' running, but when they match him up against President Bush, the bottom line is Bush comes out on top," said Del Ali, president of Research 2000.

The poll of 600 likely voters was taken Monday through Thursday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

It shows former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, trailing by a larger margin in North Carolina. If the general election were held today, Bush would beat Dean 57 percent to 38 percent, the poll found. If retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas, the only Southerner besides Edwards, were the nominee, the poll found Bush would prevail, 54 percent to 40 percent.

No Democrat has carried North Carolina in a presidential election since 1976, when Jimmy Carter from neighboring Georgia won.

If Edwards were to become the party's nominee, "I could see a heck of race in North Carolina, but it would still be Bush's race to lose," Ali said. "I can see absolutely no scenario where Dean beats Bush in North Carolina."

Edwards spent Friday campaigning in New Hampshire, the nation's first primary state, where voters will assess the Democratic field eight days after the Jan. 19 caucuses in Iowa.

A separate poll released this week by Research 2000 showed Edwards running fourth in Iowa. Dean led the pack, with support of 29 percent of likely caucus-goers, followed by Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri with 25 percent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts with 18 percent and Edwards with 8 percent.

Recent tracking polls in New Hampshire conducted by the American Research Group have shown Edwards further back in the pack, with support hovering around 3 percent.

In New Hampshire, Edwards sought to improve his standing with appearances before several hundred college students in Manchester, a packed diner full of Democrats in Keene and a town hall meeting in Nashua. At all three stops, Edwards was received enthusiastically as he tried to sell himself as a Washington outsider focused on moving the country forward rather than sniping at his Democratic rivals.

"Together, you and I can change America," Edwards told about 75 people packed in Timoleon's Restaurant in Keene.

North Carolinians' assessment of Edwards' chances to do that has slipped some since the last N&O poll in November.

In the new poll, 19 percent said they think Edwards is "likely" to be the Democratic nominee, while 32 percent said there is "some chance," and 43 percent saw "no chance."

In November, 21 percent said Edwards is "likely" to be the nominee, while 34 percent said there is "some chance," and 36 percent saw "no chance."

The poll also showed Edwards continuing to hold a comfortable lead in a hypothetical Democratic presidential primary in North Carolina. Edwards drew the support of 40 percent, while Dean drew 26 percent. The other candidates were in the single digits.

Edwards' standing is better than that of some of his rivals in their home states. A poll late last year, for example, showed Dean and Kerry to be in a statistical dead heat among likely Democratic voters in Massachusetts. A similar poll in Connecticut showed Lieberman with a five-point lead over Dean.

North Carolina's primary is scheduled for May, by which time the Democrats are likely to have already selected a nominee.


Washington correspondent John Wagner can be reached at (202) 662-4380 or jwagner@mcclatchydc.com.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 11, 2004, 06:37:59 pm
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.

Please excuse me while I roll on the floor in laughter.  Dean could never win PA.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 07:06:40 pm
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.

Please excuse me while I roll on the floor in laughter.  Dean could never win PA.

That's my belief, too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 11, 2004, 09:33:53 pm
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.

Please excuse me while I roll on the floor in laughter.  Dean could never win PA.

That's my belief, too.

Me three.  Dean doesn't have the appeal to pull in the conservative Dems in the T.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 09:33:26 am
Capito only won 60% because Humphries(an apalling candidate) kept some good candidates out of the primary with his money so he could have a rematch.
Stupid bastard.
With a good candidate Capito might have gone down in 2002, and it might be too late now. Typical...
BTW the GOP run a sacrificial lamb against Rahall in the Coal District
I don't see why they bothered but they did...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 12, 2004, 11:22:33 am
Capito only won 60% because Humphries(an apalling candidate) kept some good candidates out of the primary with his money so he could have a rematch.
Stupid bastard.
With a good candidate Capito might have gone down in 2002, and it might be too late now. Typical...
BTW the GOP run a sacrificial lamb against Rahall in the Coal District
I don't see why they bothered but they did...

The GOP didn't run one in 2000, though.  The seat is a bellwether for congressional elections and will be at least until redistricting.   No trend has been established, but one could be established.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 12:27:22 pm
The GOP might be able to make WV less of a one party state, I won't deny that, but that's about it.
I think that you lot have a good chance at making FL a GOP fortress though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 12, 2004, 01:29:15 pm
The GOP might be able to make WV less of a one party state, I won't deny that, but that's about it.
I think that you lot have a good chance at making FL a GOP fortress though...

The Dems should spend alot of money on WV-2.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 12, 2004, 02:31:45 pm
Didn't the Democrat WV gov say he wasn't running again b/c of an affair or soemthing?


The GOP might be able to make WV less of a one party state, I won't deny that, but that's about it.
I think that you lot have a good chance at making FL a GOP fortress though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 12, 2004, 02:36:44 pm
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.

Well, but then they would cease to be tossups, wouldn't they?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 12, 2004, 03:30:10 pm
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.

Well, but then they would cease to be tossups, wouldn't they?

No, tossups in my mind just mean states that could go either way. If the election is close, then they probably go both ways. If the election is a landslide, they probably all fall in one direction toward the winner.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 03:33:27 pm
Didn't the Democrat WV gov say he wasn't running again b/c of an affair or soemthing?

Officially yes.
Actually Wise isn't running for re-election because as a result of his affair he was going to suffer the humilation of losing in the Democratic Primary...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 03:39:03 pm
The Dems should spend alot of money on WV-2.

Agreed


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 12, 2004, 03:39:41 pm
GOP could make hay out of that, running against corruption and bad policies in the state government for gov.  Just like Dems will be able to do in CT in 2006 and GOP did in KY this year with Gov Patton's sex scandal.

If people want that change it can result in more GOP votes across the board.  Just something to look for.


Didn't the Democrat WV gov say he wasn't running again b/c of an affair or soemthing?

Officially yes.
Actually Wise isn't running for re-election because as a result of his affair he was going to suffer the humilation of losing in the Democratic Primary...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 03:49:06 pm
Problem with that is that WV occasionally elects a GOP governer to act as a semi-balance to the all powerfull WVDP, Wise beat unpopular incumbent GOP governer Cecil Underwood in 2000 for example, but they[WVGOP Governers] are usually incompetent and voters don't want a new one for a least 10, preferably 15, years.

WV can be a weird state sometimes...

BTW WVSOS, Machin, is running and is going to be very hard to beat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 12, 2004, 04:21:10 pm
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 12, 2004, 10:59:40 pm
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.

Civil unions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 12, 2004, 11:19:28 pm
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.

Dean could never win in Pittsburgh.  He would get some union support, but he is so liberal on social issues that they would ride him out of town on a rail.  You need to win at least two of the three regions in PA to win the state and Dean could never pull it.  He would win around Philadelphia, but he would get trounched in the T and Pittsburgh.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 08:02:33 am
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.

Civil unions.
Guns.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 11:09:19 am
This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at  the 2004 Prediction page (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/pred04.php).  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)-- Howard Dean has moved out to at least a 2-1 lead in New York over his chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, while President Bush's popularity has rebounded in the heavily Democratic state, a statewide poll reported Tuesday.

The poll, from Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, had the former Vermont governor favored by 26% of Democratic voters surveyed with Sen. Joseph Lieberman of neighboring Connecticut at 12% and retired Gen. Wesley Clark backed by 10% of the Democrats. None of the other contenders cracked double digits in the new poll. Twenty-six percent of Democrats said they were undecided.

An October poll from Marist had Dean leading Lieberman, 18% to 16%, with Clark at 14% among New York Democrats.

But the new poll also found that Republican Bush appears to be a viable option for New York voters in a state where Democrats have a 5-3 enrollment advantage over Republicans. Among all registered New York voters sampled, 34% said they would definitely vote for the incumbent president in this year's election while 36% said they would definitely vote against him. Thirty percent were undecided.

A September poll from the Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based institute had found 32% of voters planned to vote for Bush and 48% planned to vote against him.

The improvement for Bush's standing in New York was also evident in his job approval rating -- 52% in the new poll and 44% in the September poll.

Republican Gov. George Pataki has boasted that Bush will carry New York in this year's election, a feat not accomplished by a Republican in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan did it in 1980 and 1984.

The telephone poll of 617 registered voters was conducted Jan. 6-7 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The Democratic results, based on a sampling of 544 party members, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 13, 2004, 11:14:42 am
This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at  the 2004 Prediction page (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/pred04.php).  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)-- Howard Dean has moved out to at least a 2-1 lead in New York over his chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, while President Bush's popularity has rebounded in the heavily Democratic state, a statewide poll reported Tuesday.

The poll, from Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, had the former Vermont governor favored by 26% of Democratic voters surveyed with Sen. Joseph Lieberman of neighboring Connecticut at 12% and retired Gen. Wesley Clark backed by 10% of the Democrats. None of the other contenders cracked double digits in the new poll. Twenty-six percent of Democrats said they were undecided.

An October poll from Marist had Dean leading Lieberman, 18% to 16%, with Clark at 14% among New York Democrats.

But the new poll also found that Republican Bush appears to be a viable option for New York voters in a state where Democrats have a 5-3 enrollment advantage over Republicans. Among all registered New York voters sampled, 34% said they would definitely vote for the incumbent president in this year's election while 36% said they would definitely vote against him. Thirty percent were undecided.

A September poll from the Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based institute had found 32% of voters planned to vote for Bush and 48% planned to vote against him.

The improvement for Bush's standing in New York was also evident in his job approval rating -- 52% in the new poll and 44% in the September poll.

Republican Gov. George Pataki has boasted that Bush will carry New York in this year's election, a feat not accomplished by a Republican in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan did it in 1980 and 1984.

The telephone poll of 617 registered voters was conducted Jan. 6-7 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The Democratic results, based on a sampling of 544 party members, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.


Like I said, I have a feeling that if Dean is the nominee, Bush could win New York.  Granted, this is just short on an absolutly best case senario, but it could happen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 11:18:21 am
Bush at 59% in Gallup Poll as 1/11...

Bush is in a good position at this time. With the capture of Saddam Hussein, and improvements in the economy, his job approval rating -- currently at 59% -- and his electoral strength against possible Democratic candidates have improved.

Although the results presented here are for "likely" voters, the poll shows little difference between the preferences of likely voters (representing about half the adult population) and the preferences of the larger population of "registered" voters.

Bush's advantage over Dean among registered voters has been as low as 3 percentage points (last September), and as high as 23 points (in mid-December).

Shortly after Clark announced his candidacy, he enjoyed a 3-point margin among registered voters over Bush (in a Sept. 19-21 poll), but in mid-December, Bush's advantage was 16 points.

While some political observers, as well as Democratic candidates, have suggested that Dean is less electable than other Democrats, the poll provides no corroborating evidence. At this point of the campaign, each of the major candidates appears about as strong as the other.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 12:21:13 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 13, 2004, 12:34:50 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 13, 2004, 12:44:48 pm
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.

Well, but then they would cease to be tossups, wouldn't they?

No, tossups in my mind just mean states that could go either way. If the election is close, then they probably go both ways. If the election is a landslide, they probably all fall in one direction toward the winner.

A tossup to me is a 50-50 state, 50-50 states should statistically be distributed equally. If there is a landslide driving them towards one side, they cease to be tossups, perhaps not in time for us to realise that or change our predictions, but cease to be tossups all the same.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 01:39:56 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 01:40:39 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 01:43:02 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 01:44:44 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.
Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 01:46:43 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.
Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  :)
Nader polled 3.7% here.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 01:49:43 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 01:49:51 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.
Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  :)
Nader polled 3.7% here.
He may poll better this year.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 01:56:43 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 02:00:07 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 02:10:15 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 02:12:12 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.
You never know politcs can be unpredictable.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 02:12:24 pm
Dean is already alienating hordes of moderate Democrats, and the Bush campaign is showing it's strategy of winning them over in NY, NJ, and CT (see today's NY Times op-ed piece by Christie Whitman, "The Vital Republican Center").


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 02:14:39 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.
You never know politcs can be unpredictable.
but it CAN be predicted accurately.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 02:15:04 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.
You never know politcs can be unpredictable.
but it CAN be predicted accurately.
Depends on the race.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 13, 2004, 03:00:48 pm
NY was stronger for Gore than TX was for Bush.
You lot really need to learn how to read polls; based on those numbers the Dem would get 55-60%, with Bush on 35-40%

By all means target CT and NJ, but NY is a no-no.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on January 13, 2004, 03:31:16 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

In 1984 and 1988 social issues were of less importance than they are now. When economic issues are the focus, NY leans Dem but is competitive. With the focus on social issues, NY is strongly Dem. Dean would only lose NY in a McGovern/Mondale landslide.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 04:34:30 pm
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

In 1984 and 1988 social issues were of less importance than they are now. When economic issues are the focus, NY leans Dem but is competitive. With the focus on social issues, NY is strongly Dem. Dean would only lose NY in a McGovern/Mondale landslide.
In 2004, response to 9/11 is the new prominent issue.

A lot of otherwise liberal NY City voters can't support a Dean, who has already staked out an anti-war stance. Lieberman is polling second here, and many of his supporters are not going over to Dean.

On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".

I agree that Dean would lose NY only if the Dems go down big, but I think that just a little worse than Dukakis would do it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 04:47:04 pm
<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 05:51:23 pm
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 06:09:11 pm
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
I think The Jewish voting population is distributed this way:

25%: Vote exlcusively on Israeli issues.
25%: Vote somewhat on Israeli Issues.
50%: Vote mostly on American Issues.

So dean would probably win the Jewish vote 60-35% or so.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 09:25:47 pm
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.

Like Lieberman said, "If Dean had his way, Saddam would be in power, not in prison."


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 09:32:10 pm
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
I think The Jewish voting population is distributed this way:

25%: Vote exlcusively on Israeli issues.
25%: Vote somewhat on Israeli Issues.
50%: Vote mostly on American Issues.

So dean would probably win the Jewish vote 60-35% or so.

Sadly, I think you're lowballing it. I'd put Bush's support among Jewish voters at about 25%.  Still, that's better than in 2000, if I recall.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 09:33:17 pm
<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.


How about calling members of Hamas "soldiers"?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 09:37:47 pm
Disgraceful-- I have a few other names for them, like murderous terrostic thugs to be nice!


<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.


How about calling members of Hamas "soldiers"?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 11:16:44 pm
<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.

Miami, I can't see why anyone would take offense, particularly because I wasn't "codifying" all Jews as Israel supporters, which they are not. Perhaps I should clarify by saying that I'm a Jew who turned off to Dean as soon as I heard the Middle East remark.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 11:45:21 pm
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
There's no question that if the contest is Bush-Dean, there will never be a starker contrast between two candidates on the issue of support for Israel.

The rise in anti-Semitism on the European left is another reason that more Jews are feeling uncomfortable with Euro-American multilateralism on matters regarding the Middle East.

I'd say that if the Democrat is anti-war or has a muddy position, we're going to see an accelerated erosion of the Democratic Jewish vote. With two million Jews in New York City, that's gotta matter.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 11:47:34 pm
Also in FL, which seems to be getting better all the time for President Bush.


Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
There's no question that if the contest is Bush-Dean, there will never be a starker contrast between two candidates on the issue of support for Israel.

The rise in anti-Semitism on the European left is another reason that more Jews are feeling uncomfortable with Euro-American multilateralism on matters regarding the Middle East.

I'd say that if the Democrat is anti-war or has a muddy position, we're going to see an accelerated erosion of the Democratic Jewish vote. With two million Jews in New York City, that's gotta matter.


Title: 2004 predictions
Post by: japple on January 14, 2004, 12:30:34 am
This early in the process, I can only look at past results. States that voted Republican 4 out of the past 5 elections are worth 207 electoral votes. I'm calling this Bush's base. States he carried in 2000 are currently worth 278 - a razor thin victory. Add states that he lost by less than 5% brings him to 338. That's what I think he'll need to be considered a solid victory. States he lost in '00 where I think he's got the best shot are MN, IA, PA and NM.

My home state of MN hasn't voted Republican in a long time, but in every case there was a Minnesotan on the ballot or there was a strong Democratic
candidate. It was VERY close in '84 and '00. A solid effort by Bush - and his volunteers - in '04 will give him the state. Republicans regularily win state-wide elections here, but it's usually close - Senate and Governor in 2002.

With no Senate or Governor race, and no competative House races this year, Minnesota is going to be all about turn-out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 14, 2004, 04:28:21 am
MN will be close, like it usually is, although I think it leans Democrat as there isn't going to be a strong Greenie standing this year.
The GOP can only win if turnout is low in strongly Democrat areas.
I actually think that the GOP have a better chance at winning in Wisconsin than MN.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 14, 2004, 06:58:04 am
Bush at 59% in Gallup Poll as 1/11...

Bush is in a good position at this time. With the capture of Saddam Hussein, and improvements in the economy, his job approval rating -- currently at 59% -- and his electoral strength against possible Democratic candidates have improved.

Although the results presented here are for "likely" voters, the poll shows little difference between the preferences of likely voters (representing about half the adult population) and the preferences of the larger population of "registered" voters.

Bush's advantage over Dean among registered voters has been as low as 3 percentage points (last September), and as high as 23 points (in mid-December).

Shortly after Clark announced his candidacy, he enjoyed a 3-point margin among registered voters over Bush (in a Sept. 19-21 poll), but in mid-December, Bush's advantage was 16 points.

While some political observers, as well as Democratic candidates, have suggested that Dean is less electable than other Democrats, the poll provides no corroborating evidence. At this point of the campaign, each of the major candidates appears about as strong as the other.


Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
Yet Democrats said to have edge on many domestic issues

(CNN) --Two-thirds of Americans think President Bush has the right personal qualities for the presidency, yet nearly half or more think the Democratic Party would do a better job on major domestic issues, according to a new poll.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday interviewed 1,003 adult Americans last weekend on Bush and national issues ranging from the environment to security.

The poll indicated that Bush's favorable standing with most Americans on his personal qualities is a main reason for his job approval rating of 59 percent in the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll and similar high marks in other polls.

The poll also showed that 55 percent of those interviewed agree with Bush on the issues that matter to them.

"With previous polls showing that voters are paying more attention to personal qualities than issues right now, it looks as if Bush's strength is who he is, more than what he stands for," CNN pollster Keating Holland said.

Split on issues
The poll showed that though most Americans give the edge to the Democratic Party on domestic issues, the Republican Party retains an advantage on security issues and world affairs, and Bush gets credit for that.

At least 50 percent or more of those interviewed said the Democratic Party would do a better job on such issues as the environment, health care and education.

Nearly 50 percent preferred the Democrats on issues such as the budget deficit, the economy and taxes.

But on issues such as terrorism, the Iraq war, world affairs and gun policy, those interviewed gave the nod to the Republicans.

On other questions, less than half of those interviewed said they thought a terrorist attack is likely in the United States in the next few weeks.

But that is not a personal concern for many Americans -- only about one in nine of those interviewed said they thought terrorism was likely in their community.

Three-quarters said they think Bush has addressed the fundamental security risks the country faces.

The poll had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 14, 2004, 08:10:43 am
I don't vote on if a candidate is personally likeable [I voted for gore :)], but rather if they can get the job done.  I don't think GWB is personally likeable, but I can see how some people would say he is.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 11:13:52 am
either one would be a huge win for GOP>


MN will be close, like it usually is, although I think it leans Democrat as there isn't going to be a strong Greenie standing this year.
The GOP can only win if turnout is low in strongly Democrat areas.
I actually think that the GOP have a better chance at winning in Wisconsin than MN.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 11:15:36 am
Besides politics I always have the "4 year test" can I stand to have this person speak to me for 4 years from the Oval office.  Gore failed that test with me.  

By far not the only factor for me, but sit back , close your eyes and visualize each candidate addressingthe nation and see if they fit the job.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 11:53:09 am
MN will be close, like it usually is, although I think it leans Democrat as there isn't going to be a strong Greenie standing this year.
The GOP can only win if turnout is low in strongly Democrat areas.
I actually think that the GOP have a better chance at winning in Wisconsin than MN.
So do I.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 11:53:33 am
Besides politics I always have the "4 year test" can I stand to have this person speak to me for 4 years from the Oval office.  Gore failed that test with me.  

By far not the only factor for me, but sit back , close your eyes and visualize each candidate addressingthe nation and see if they fit the job.

That's why I'm against Bush... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 11:55:32 am
But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 12:14:01 pm
But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 14, 2004, 01:07:04 pm
But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...
Haha...
The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 01:18:19 pm
I think i got your point, but you are missing a few words

But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...
Haha...
The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 14, 2004, 01:19:23 pm
I think i got your point, but you are missing a few words

But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...
Haha...
The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry.
I am missing words?  What does that mean?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 01:22:06 pm
Reread your own sentence, to get what i am saying.




The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 14, 2004, 01:32:21 pm
Oh, I wrote 'is' instead of 'I'.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 01:51:56 pm
Reread your own sentence, to get what i am saying.




The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry

Look who's talking! If there is anyone on this forum (except for trolls of course) who does that it's you! ()No offense, JR) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 03:01:46 pm
Hey no problem.  Call me on it.  Mine is b/c I type fast usually.  I really didn't know what he meant for a bit.

Reread your own sentence, to get what i am saying.




The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry

Look who's talking! If there is anyone on this forum (except for trolls of course) who does that it's you! ()No offense, JR) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 08:13:23 pm
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/


good site with lots of political info.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Huckleberry Finn on January 15, 2004, 09:47:30 am
I just added my prediction map!

This is Dean scenario with successful campaign and situation where Bush has troubles with economy and Iraq. Dean would get most of Nader's votes = pretty solid victory in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Maine and lean victory in New Hampshire and New Mexico. Result in Ohio and West Virginia would be very tight. In Iowa and Nevada Dean's victory would be slightly bigger. Connecticut could be tighter than in 2000, because there’s no Lieberman's effect.

There is several stupid mistake in spelling in my comment like conneticut and new hapshire. And I can’t fix it, cos I have forgot my password. DAMN!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Huckleberry Finn on January 15, 2004, 10:19:32 am
I added another one. It is Clark-Edwards scenario in situation where Bush has BIG troubles with economy and Iraq. You can find it as user Huckleberry Finn2.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 15, 2004, 12:08:07 pm
I just added my prediction map!

This is Dean scenario with successful campaign and situation where Bush has troubles with economy and Iraq. Dean would get most of Nader's votes = pretty solid victory in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Maine and lean victory in New Hampshire and New Mexico. Result in Ohio and West Virginia would be very tight. In Iowa and Nevada Dean's victory would be slightly bigger. Connecticut could be tighter than in 2000, because there’s no Lieberman's effect.

There is several stupid mistake in spelling in my comment like conneticut and new hapshire. And I can’t fix it, cos I have forgot my password. DAMN!


It sounds like you're being quite optimstic...I will have a look at it and tell you what I think.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Huckleberry Finn on January 15, 2004, 03:38:52 pm
I have also added Dean scenario of situation where he has too liberal and poor campaign and Bush has good economy and no problem with Iraq.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 15, 2004, 03:41:15 pm
I have also added Dean scenario of situation where he has too liberal and poor campaign and Bush has good economy and no problem with Iraq.

Yeah, I spotted that, so I take back my initial assesment. Just so you know, Dave Leip put a maximum of three predictions per user, then they get deleted, I think. Btw, Dave, I forgot the password to one of my predictions, the one with my name and a 4. So you can remove that if you wish, it forced me to put another one in, even though I didn't intend to.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 16, 2004, 10:26:33 am
But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...
Haha...
The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry.

Why Kerry? He's similar to Edwards.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 16, 2004, 11:10:38 am
I thought of putting this in the Economic Numbers section, but didn't think it was good enough of a fit.

Drivers of SUVs and other gas guzzlers may want to keep their vehicles parked over the summer.

That's because some experts are saying that gas could -- gulp -- hit the $3-a-gallon mark.

"It is not only possible, it is probable," said Fred Rozell, director of gasoline pricing for Oil Price Information Service, which tracks and reports on the oil industry. "In the summer, we consume more gasoline than we produce.

"[This year] we won't have that extra supply to help us."

Winter weather, bolstering demand for heating fuels, already has cut U.S. crude stocks to the lowest level since 1975.

And with simple economics -- in particular the supply and demand rule -- consumers can expect the price of gas to reach record levels. Those prices would especially be possible in Chicago, where government regulations require gas stations to supply more costly reformulated gasoline to reduce smog.

"This could be the year that gasoline prices start to change the way people behave," Rozell said. "They may drive less or look to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and get rid of their SUVs."

That $3 threshold shouldn't come as a big surprise to pump watchers. Over the last few days, prices at the pump have done more than just trickle upward --they have soared. Prices have surged more than 7 cents a gallon in the last three weeks.

Several factors are being blamed for the uptick, including rising crude oil prices, a weaker U.S. dollar, colder weather that drove up demand for home heating oil, and two U.S. gasoline reformulations, said analyst Trilby Lundberg.

Earlier this week, the all-grades average retail price of gasoline was 8 cents higher than it was at this time last year. The national weighted average price of gasoline, including taxes, at self-serve pumps was about $1.55 for regular, $1.65 for midgrade, and $1.74 for premium.

But those numbers are only expected to rise.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the forecast for prices to remain stable through the summer banked on crude oil being about $30 a barrel. In the last week, the price of crude oil has flirted in the mid-$30s and could rise further.

Retail analysts say gasoline costs rise about 2.5 cents per gallon for every $1-a-barrel increase in the price of crude oil. And combine that with near record low inventories -- some of the lowest since the long-line days of 1975 -- and drivers may want to learn that CTA map.

But not everyone is ready to buy into the higher prices.

"There is no way that anyone can predict the price of oil next week, let alone next summer," said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for the American Automobile Association. "There is no need to start scaring the consumer with what prices might be."

Sundstrom said the reasons for the short-term increase have been the cold weather and the low inventory, both of which he says will be over in the next few months.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 16, 2004, 12:33:39 pm
I thought of putting this in the Economic Numbers section, but didn't think it was good enough of a fit.

Drivers of SUVs and other gas guzzlers may want to keep their vehicles parked over the summer.

That's because some experts are saying that gas could -- gulp -- hit the $3-a-gallon mark.

"It is not only possible, it is probable," said Fred Rozell, director of gasoline pricing for Oil Price Information Service, which tracks and reports on the oil industry. "In the summer, we consume more gasoline than we produce.

"[This year] we won't have that extra supply to help us."

Winter weather, bolstering demand for heating fuels, already has cut U.S. crude stocks to the lowest level since 1975.

And with simple economics -- in particular the supply and demand rule -- consumers can expect the price of gas to reach record levels. Those prices would especially be possible in Chicago, where government regulations require gas stations to supply more costly reformulated gasoline to reduce smog.

"This could be the year that gasoline prices start to change the way people behave," Rozell said. "They may drive less or look to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and get rid of their SUVs."

That $3 threshold shouldn't come as a big surprise to pump watchers. Over the last few days, prices at the pump have done more than just trickle upward --they have soared. Prices have surged more than 7 cents a gallon in the last three weeks.

Several factors are being blamed for the uptick, including rising crude oil prices, a weaker U.S. dollar, colder weather that drove up demand for home heating oil, and two U.S. gasoline reformulations, said analyst Trilby Lundberg.

Earlier this week, the all-grades average retail price of gasoline was 8 cents higher than it was at this time last year. The national weighted average price of gasoline, including taxes, at self-serve pumps was about $1.55 for regular, $1.65 for midgrade, and $1.74 for premium.

But those numbers are only expected to rise.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the forecast for prices to remain stable through the summer banked on crude oil being about $30 a barrel. In the last week, the price of crude oil has flirted in the mid-$30s and could rise further.

Retail analysts say gasoline costs rise about 2.5 cents per gallon for every $1-a-barrel increase in the price of crude oil. And combine that with near record low inventories -- some of the lowest since the long-line days of 1975 -- and drivers may want to learn that CTA map.

But not everyone is ready to buy into the higher prices.

"There is no way that anyone can predict the price of oil next week, let alone next summer," said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for the American Automobile Association. "There is no need to start scaring the consumer with what prices might be."

Sundstrom said the reasons for the short-term increase have been the cold weather and the low inventory, both of which he says will be over in the next few months.


What's a gallon in litres, please, so I know what we're talking about. In Sweden it's 10 SEK, that is roughly 1.33$ per litre, but it's mainly due to a 200% tax on gas.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 16, 2004, 04:26:32 pm
$3/gallon?
That's an issue that could fuel (!) unhappiness with Bush/big oil.

Gustaf - A liter is .264 gallon, slightly more than a U.S. quart.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 16, 2004, 04:28:22 pm
$3/gallon?
That's an issue that could fuel (!) unhappiness with Bush/big oil.

Gustaf - A liter is .264 gallon, slightly more than a U.S. quart.


So $3/gallon would translate into roughly $0.75/litre? Then we're still way above you... :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 12:29:55 am
My prediction (Democrats in Upper Case, Republicans in lower):

(Revised from one last year which gave Kentucky to the Democrats :rolleyes:

alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
CALIFORNIA
colorado
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DC
florida
georgia
HAWAII
idaho
ILLINOIS
indiana
IOWA
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
mississippi
missouri
montana
nebraska
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
north carolina
north dakota
ohio
oklahoma
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
south carolina
south dakota
TENNESSEE
texas
utah
VERMONT
virginia
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
wyoming


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 07:13:41 am
My prediction (Democrats in Upper Case, Republicans in lower):

(Revised from one last year which gave Kentucky to the Democrats :rolleyes:

alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
CALIFORNIA
colorado
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DC
florida
georgia
HAWAII
idaho
ILLINOIS
indiana
IOWA
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
mississippi
missouri
montana
nebraska
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
north carolina
north dakota
ohio
oklahoma
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
south carolina
south dakota
TENNESSEE
texas
utah
VERMONT
virginia
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
wyoming

Post a prediction map instead, much easier to follow. :)

And make 18 posts, then you can register for our fantasy elections and help elect Nym90 as POTAF (President of the Atlas Forum).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 10:10:38 am
AFPresident sounds better.  But Hugh, we need your vote!

I had Gore losing Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico, all of which he won.  Don't try to make optimistic predictions, you'll dissapoint yourself.  
Another way to solve the problem is to make best-case scenario predictions and worst-case scenario predictions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 10:16:02 am
AFPresident sounds better.  But Hugh, we need your vote!

I had Gore losing Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico, all of which he won.  Don't try to make optimistic predictions, you'll dissapoint yourself.  
Another way to solve the problem is to make best-case scenario predictions and worst-case scenario predictions.

Yes, but POTUS doesn't sound good either,anyway.

Btw, I think it's time to get to work Mr. Chairman, the Reps are ahead in registered voters.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 10:21:56 am
How about I name you the leader of the AFDNC voter registration department?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 10:22:31 am
How about I name you the leader of the AFDNC voter registration department?

OK, I feel honoured! :)

I will start right away!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 10:22:58 am
How about I name you the leader of the AFDNC voter registration department?

OK, I feel honoured! :)

I will start right away!
Go to work buddy!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 04:21:29 pm
I've already registered to vote ;)

Map on the way :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:23:22 pm
I've already registered to vote ;)

Map on the way :)

Yeah, sorry, I realized that, I keep mixing people up, what with all those red avatars... :(

I will check out your map when you put it up.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 04:25:56 pm
How do you put images up?



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:27:37 pm
Dammit, Hugh!  you messed this up.  Fix your bracket so me don'thave to carry on like this.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:27:38 pm
How do you put images up?

I'll try it the [IMG] way...

[IMGhttp://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/genusmap.php?year=2004&AL=2;9;5&AK=2;3;5&AZ=2;10;5&AR=2;6;5&CA=1;55;5&CO=2;9;5&CT=1;7;5&DE=1;3;5&DC=1;3;5&FL=2;27;5&GA=2;15;5&HI=1;4;5&ID=2;4;5&IL=1;21;5&IN=2;11;5&IA=1;7;5&KS=2;6;5&KY=2;8;5&LA=2;9;5&ME=1;4;5&MD=1;10;5&MA=1;12;5&MI=1;17;5&MN=1;10;5&MS=2;6;5&MO=2;11;5&MT=2;3;5&NE=2;5;5&NV=1;5;5&NH=1;4;5&NJ=1;15;5&NM=1;5;5&NY=1;31;5&NC=2;15;5&ND=2;3;5&OH=2;20;5&OK=2;7;5&OR=1;7;5&PA=1;21;5&RI=1;4;5&SC=2;8;5&SD=2;3;5&TN=1;11;5&TX=2;34;5&UT=2;5;5&VT=1;3;5&VA=2;13;5&WA=1;11;5&WV=1;5;5&WI=1;10;5&WY=2;3;5/IMG]

Not this again...you could just make one on the prediction page of the site, post here that you've done that, and then I can check it out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:29:11 pm
Lets keep posting so this goes away.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:30:52 pm
Lets keep posting so this goes away.

Thatδ's a pretty good idea.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:34:06 pm
I like Jennifer Aniston.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:36:34 pm
I like Jennifer Aniston.

Not that again... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:37:27 pm
Why not?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:38:52 pm
Why not?

I dunno...you posted that just b/c you're used to it, right? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 04:41:48 pm
sorry. If you didn't quote it, it might have gone away... :p


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:42:23 pm
When I try to post, it still looks like this.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:44:35 pm
When I try to post, it still looks like this.

Yeah, it looks weird in posting mode, but not afterwards. Strange.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 04:47:55 pm
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=828

hope that isn't too long

*bites nails*


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:50:55 pm
No, not too long.

The problem is the posts we have listed under the box we type in.  Once we push gustaf's quote of Hugh out of there, we're home free.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:51:17 pm
Aaaaaaaargh! It still is annoying! I looked at your map, but I don't like to have an in-depth discussion on this weird thread. It looked pretty optimistic, and I will complain about the tossups not being equally distributed.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:55:08 pm
We can do this!  Just keep posting!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:55:59 pm
We can do this!  Just keep posting!

Whatever you say...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:56:50 pm
Yes, whatever I say.  I am the boss.
I think one more postb and the problem is fixed.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:57:17 pm
Oh Yeah.  I got it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:57:48 pm
Oh Yeah.  I got it.

HA! We did it! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:59:39 pm
Oh Yeah.  I got it.

HA! We did it! :)
High five!
Back to the discussion.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Special K on January 17, 2004, 05:01:16 pm
(
Img
)

Bush v. Clark

Bush wins 328 over Clark's 210.  I know, I know...Arkansas goes Rep.  I just really don't see Clark being able to win over his home state.  I was actually going to put California as a toss-up b/c all recent polls in the state have Bush leading every Dem candidate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:03:33 pm
Clark would lose wisconsin.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Special K on January 17, 2004, 05:04:35 pm
Clark would lose wisconsin.

Hm.  Probably right about that actually...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:05:17 pm
Clark would lose wisconsin.

Hm.  Probably right about that actually...
Yeah, bush could expose clark's phonieness.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 05:14:50 pm
California should come around to the Dems eventually. Let's keep in mind that most undecideds break against the incumbent, so Bush will most likely do worse in some states than current polls predict. But I agree that Clark no longer looks like a strong candidate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:22:41 pm
California should come around to the Dems eventually. Let's keep in mind that most undecideds break against the incumbent, so Bush will most likely do worse in some states than current polls predict. But I agree that Clark no longer looks like a strong candidate.
CA probably will go Dem but it will be close.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 05:28:59 pm
My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because :p

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 05:32:33 pm
My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because :p

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



You also give the Dems other tossups: NH, Maine and Delaware. Wait a minute! DELAWARE? :)

Anyway, you marked those as tossups, so it's a 32-20 to the Dems.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:36:44 pm
I posted my Edwards prediction here somewhere, I have Edwards losing by 14 ev's.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 05:37:16 pm
I posted my Edwards prediction here somewhere, I have Edwards losing by 14 ev's.

Yeah, I remember that one.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:38:37 pm
I posted my Edwards prediction here somewhere, I have Edwards losing by 14 ev's.

Yeah, I remember that one.
If only you remembered the location!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 05:39:27 pm
Yes Delaware will be close :p

I forgot about it; all tucked away over there :p

Maine and NH will go Democrat if it's Dean; I put them as tossups b/c I didn't want it to look like I was unrealistically favouring the Democrats.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:42:26 pm
I don't think Dean would take NH.

I think Delaware was originally part of Pennsylvania (I'm talking colonial times) and then broke away from it.  Not sure about that though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 05:47:31 pm
I posted my Edwards prediction here somewhere, I have Edwards losing by 14 ev's.

Yeah, I remember that one.
If only you remembered the location!!

Sorry, I don't. Why don't you start by going through the 47 pages of this thread, before moving on to other threads... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:57:38 pm
How many pages do you think this thread will have by November 2004?  250?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 06:01:33 pm
How many pages do you think this thread will have by November 2004?  250?

At least.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 06:16:27 pm
How many pages do you think this thread will have by November 2004?  250?

At least.
And how many replies?  3000?

I think posting at this topic will heat up during and after the primaries.

Every forum has a very long thread, and this is ours.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 06:51:37 pm
How many pages do you think this thread will have by November 2004?  250?

At least.
And how many replies?  3000?

I think posting at this topic will heat up during and after the primaries.

Every forum has a very long thread, and this is ours.

Yes, definitely. I have seen some statistics from a Swedish group mail-thingy I was on last year, and during the last month before election day the number of messages went sky-high.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 07:41:24 pm
Yes, definitely. I have seen some statistics from a Swedish group mail-thingy I was on last year, and during the last month before election day the number of messages went sky-high.
It's gonna be a fun ride.

How do you think replies on this thread will trend after the election?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 07:47:01 pm
Yes, definitely. I have seen some statistics from a Swedish group mail-thingy I was on last year, and during the last month before election day the number of messages went sky-high.
It's gonna be a fun ride.

How do you think replies on this thread will trend after the election?

Considering the fact that we're plitical junkies? It will remain high after the election to discuss the aftermath, the recounts, etc. and then it will go down around the time of New Year. Then as new elections approaches it will start going up again. But with no major US elections in 2005 there will be less activity that year.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 07:51:56 pm
Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 08:00:26 pm
Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.
Ah, I forgot about that. Yes, I kind of hope he does. ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 08:04:23 pm
It would be the logical thing to do,  to kind of archive the thread.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Special K on January 17, 2004, 10:41:15 pm
(
Img
)

Bush v. Kerry

Bush gets 387 over Kerry's 151.  Just my prediction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 18, 2004, 07:24:36 am
(
Img
)

Bush v. Kerry

Bush gets 387 over Kerry's 151.  Just my prediction.

That is really rough on the guy. I think he wouldn't do that bad. Why would he lose CAlifornia but win Michigan?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 09:01:59 am
Kerry would win california and Pennsylvania, but lose Michigan and wisconsin.  He might take maine also.

I think Kerry actually might be a weaker candidate than Dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2004, 05:48:11 pm
Dean would raise attendance; many ABB people would turn out that wouldn't if it was Kerry or Clark or Edwards.

I think the most electable is Edwards; he might lose Oregon and Iowa but he would win Louisiana, Tennesse, and bring Arkansas, WV and Florida into play.

BTW, I agree with Miami. Kerry would still win CA, and I'd say Pennsylvania would be his too. I don't think he'd lose Michigan, but he might lose Wisconsin, and he'd win Maine.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 05:53:42 pm
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

(
Img
)
Bush 349 to Kerry 189.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 05:54:26 pm
Looking at that map it's hard to beliveve Kerry had 189...lol.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 18, 2004, 06:07:15 pm
Looking at that map it's hard to beliveve Kerry had 189...lol.

You mean b/c the Red area looks so small? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 06:32:58 pm
Looking at that map it's hard to beliveve Kerry had 189...lol.

You mean b/c the Red area looks so small? :)
Yeah, all the Bush states that are large geographically are small population wise.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on January 18, 2004, 10:28:35 pm
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

(
Img
)
Bush 349 to Kerry 189.
Nice Map you did a good Job on it


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2004, 10:37:28 pm
Surely Kerry would win Washington?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 10:41:07 pm
Nice Map you did a good Job on it
Thank you.  Tell god that I made a nice map, alright?

It is not a sure thing that Kerry would win Washington.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2004, 10:51:52 pm
OK, maybe not surely.

But he'd have a better chance at it then Bush, imo.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 10:57:00 pm
OK, maybe not surely.

But he'd have a better chance at it then Bush, imo.
I think Bush would take it becuase Kerry wouldn't energize the urban liberal base in Seattle, which is the state's lone Democratic stronghold.

What does imo mean?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nation on January 18, 2004, 11:05:04 pm
I think its "in my opinion"

And it'd take a pretty crappy campaign to lose Washington. . .imo


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2004, 11:08:07 pm
yes, in my opinion.

imho means the same, with "humble" added.

I agree with of_this; Kerry would have to screw up to lose Washington, it has high turnouts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 19, 2004, 03:27:14 am
Of course, Dukakis was able to carry Washington.  I guess if I had to guess I'd say Kerry would probably have the edge.  It's only a guess as a have a VERY superficial knowledge of Wahington state politics.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 19, 2004, 01:53:15 pm
I don't know all that much about Washington state either, but I do know the only liberal area is the greater Seattle area, as you go further west in the less populted areas it becomes more conservative.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 19, 2004, 02:58:07 pm
I don't know all that much about Washington state either, but I do know the only liberal area is the greater Seattle area, as you go further west in the less populted areas it becomes more conservative.

That's the case everywhere isn't it?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 19, 2004, 03:01:15 pm
Basically the coastal parts of Washington vote Democrat while the interior votes GOP.
There are exceptions: Thomas Foley represented the area around Spokane (eastern Washington) for a long time until he went down in 1994.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 19, 2004, 03:28:00 pm
Does Spokane vote democratic?  I don't know exactly where Spokane is located so the county maps don't help me out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 19, 2004, 03:45:22 pm
Spokane County voted for Bush in 2000, but voted Democrat in 1992 and 1996 and almost did in 1988.
It's on the WA-ID border.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 19, 2004, 03:46:01 pm
Spokane County voted for Bush in 2000, but voted Democrat in 1992 and 1996 and almost did in 1988.
It's on the WA-ID border.
Okay.  thanks.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:51:20 pm
I like Jennifer Aniston.

Aniston? Come on. Go with Katie Holmes or Jessica Alba or somesuch. Aniston?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:54:29 pm
(
Img
)

Bush v. Clark

Bush wins 328 over Clark's 210.  I know, I know...Arkansas goes Rep.  I just really don't see Clark being able to win over his home state.  I was actually going to put California as a toss-up b/c all recent polls in the state have Bush leading every Dem candidate.

That's about what I predict regardless of whom the Dems nominate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:56:22 pm
California should come around to the Dems eventually. Let's keep in mind that most undecideds break against the incumbent, so Bush will most likely do worse in some states than current polls predict. But I agree that Clark no longer looks like a strong candidate.

He's into time travel. Maybe he can go back and unsay all the dumb things he's said.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:57:07 pm

CA probably will go Dem but it will be close.

That is enough to just crap all over the Dems chances.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:58:28 pm
My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because :p

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



Edwards doesn't help fill the gravitas hole for Dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 08:01:32 pm
My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because :p

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



You also give the Dems other tossups: NH, Maine and Delaware. Wait a minute! DELAWARE? :)

Anyway, you marked those as tossups, so it's a 32-20 to the Dems.

Of course, Delaware. Congressman Mike Castle will deliver the goods. He's as money as Tom Brady, baby!

: )


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 10:10:38 pm
Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.

For our grandkids to look at?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 10:11:09 pm
Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.

Congrats on Edwards' strong finish, btw!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 10:12:32 pm
Kerry would win california and Pennsylvania, but lose Michigan and wisconsin.  He might take maine also.

I think Kerry actually might be a weaker candidate than Dean.

That is interesting about PA.  Will the Heinz connection help him there?  His stepson does a freakin' great Schwarzenegger impression for an amateur, by the way.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 19, 2004, 10:20:09 pm
As an Iowan to a New Hampsh**te, I pass on the mantle of the "local" :)

Have 'fun'


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 10:40:28 pm
As an Iowan to a New Hampsh**te, I pass on the mantle of the "local" :)

Have 'fun'

I met Bill Bradley at work in 2000. Pretty neat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus