Minnesota in 2004

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What booming economy?

[Nym90]

I agree with Bandit, and also I'd say that national security is far from being a certain winner for the GOP. With the rate of deaths in Iraq increasing in pace, I wouldn't count it as a definite plus just yet.

[jravnsbo]

Well the economy is coming.  I heard reports that the GDP will again be around 6% for the 4Q and that manuf jobs were added in Nov and those numbers come out Friday.  Not booming yet, but picking up steam and will be looking great by next summer.

As for Iraq word already is that troop levels will be reduced next year and more control will be given to the Iraqi's as they pass a constitution and establish a government.

[Demrepdan]

I think that Minnesota will go for Bush, 52% to 47%. After a close 2000 Presidential election, and the recent election of their new Republican Governor and Republican Senator, I think we are seeing a preview of the 2004 election.

[Nym90]

Well, we'll see about Iraq. Maybe a stable democratic government will be formed by then, but at this point I'll believe it when I see it.
Yes, the economy is starting to improve after having been down for 2.5 years. It remains to be seen where it will be next year, but it will most likely still be worse than it was before Bush took office.
Also, the budget deficit will probably be higher than it was when Bush took office.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Bush may as well forget Illinois.

[Demrepdan]

Bush may as well forget Illinois.

Well, that’s a different topic for a different thread. But it amazes me how so many people think Illinois is solidly Democratic as of late. Illinois has voted for the winning Presidential candidate every single time in the 20th century except for 1916 and 1976. Accordingly, Illinois voted for Clinton in 1992, 1996, and then voted for Gore (who won the popular vote, but not the election) in 2000. And even the 2000 election was relatively close at 54%. Illinois has given you the allusion it is  Democratic, simply because the Democrats have won the Presidency the past decade. Except for Bush’s election in 2000.

The northern half of the state is Democratic, and the southern half is Republican. Since nearly half of Illinois's population lies in the north and the other half in the south, the state is fairly evenly divided amongst Democrats and Republicans. You just need a few people from the north or south to vote for the other party in order to decide elections (including the swing voters of course.) This is what makes Illinois a swing state.

As far as the 2002 elections, Illinois voted for Senator Durbin by 66% (no big surprise) and also voted for the current Governor Rod Blagojevich (bla-GOYA-vich) with 52% of the vote (still pretty close). The Illinois General Assembly also went Democratic. Why did the Democrats win so big at the state level? Former Governor George Ryan is the answer. Nothing but corruption plagued his term of office, and the people of Illinois were ready for a change after having Republican governors for 28 years. Blagojecvich promised the voters he would end the corruption and "clean house". Voters of Illinois figured that it would be best to begin anew with new leadership. Thus, the Democrats had a big win at the state level in 2002. Again, Durbin won re-election, that isn't saying much though.

Also note that 10 of the 19 U.S. Representatives from Illinois are Republican. Therefore, there is a small glimmer of hope for the Republicans in Illinois. Many people have stated in other threads that it is the House of Representatives that determines which way the country is going, either Republican or Democrat, and since the House is in Republican control, that would lead you to the assumption that the majority of the country are Republicans. Then I suppose this logic can be applied to the state of Illinois. Since there are 10 Republicans to 9 Democrats, accordingly, Illinois’s  political beliefs lie in the Republican arena.

The Democratic Nominee won't "easily" win Illinois, and neither will Bush. Illinois is a swing state and always will be for quite some time. No amount of state level corruption could stop this.

And furthermore, no candidate should ignore the Midwest states, since it is truly the Midwest that decides elections. I think this is the reason why most states go one way or the other. People say "Hey, those states aren't going to vote for us, so f**k em!" Thus, the state votes for the other party, and in essence f**ks the candidate.

But yes, it wouldn't surprise me if Illinois voted Democratic in 2004. Since current Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R) is stepping down, and with no good Republican contenders, and some good Democratic contenders, (including well known State Comptroller Dan Hynes) I would assume that the next U.S. Senator from Illinois will be a Democrat. The majority of the 19 Congressional districts will undoutedly stay in Republican control. But as far as the Presidential election, you can pretty much flip a coin. Although Bush's chances don't look too good. If Bush wins Illinois it will be 52% for Bush 47% for the Democrat. If the Democrat wins it'll be 55% for the Democrat, 44% for Bush.

Sorry for going on about this. Since this is a thread discussing Minnesota in 2004, I shouldn’t have gone on about Illinois. I predict in the near future, there will be threads for all the swing Midwest states, WI, IA, MO, IL, MI, IN (oops not Indiana )

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think the Democrats actually have a shot at winning Indiana.

[Demrepdan]

I think the Democrats actually have a shot at winning Indiana.

Indiana hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1964. Indiana even voted for President George Bush in 1992 when things weren't so good. I don't think things will be as bad as they were back in '92 by November 2004, therefore, what reason would Indiana have for voting Democratic?

I don't see Indiana voting Democratic.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Nobody in their foggiest dreams thought Reagan would carry Rhode Island and Hawaii in 1984, but he did. So far, Bush's utter unpopularity has been severely underestimated by the media and others.

If I didn't know any better about how ingrained Republican vote fraud is, then I wouldn't even count Texas as safe for him.

[jravnsbo]

Good post.  What about Jack Ryan ( =man I wish he ha a different last name) for Senate.  Heard he is a leading candidates looks good and got plenty of money for GOP side in senate race.

Might want to check out a neat site all about IL Senate race--

http://www.ilsenate.com/


Well, that’s a different topic for a different thread. But it amazes me how so many people think Illinois is solidly Democratic as of late. Illinois has voted for the winning Presidential candidate every single time in the 20th century except for 1916 and 1976. Accordingly, Illinois voted for Clinton in 1992, 1996, and then voted for Gore (who won the popular vote, but not the election) in 2000. And even the 2000 election was relatively close at 54%. Illinois has given you the allusion it is  Democratic, simply because the Democrats have won the Presidency the past decade. Except for Bush’s election in 2000.

The northern half of the state is Democratic, and the southern half is Republican. Since nearly half of Illinois's population lies in the north and the other half in the south, the state is fairly evenly divided amongst Democrats and Republicans. You just need a few people from the north or south to vote for the other party in order to decide elections (including the swing voters of course.) This is what makes Illinois a swing state.

As far as the 2002 elections, Illinois voted for Senator Durbin by 66% (no big surprise) and also voted for the current Governor Rod Blagojevich (bla-GOYA-vich) with 52% of the vote (still pretty close). The Illinois General Assembly also went Democratic. Why did the Democrats win so big at the state level? Former Governor George Ryan is the answer. Nothing but corruption plagued his term of office, and the people of Illinois were ready for a change after having Republican governors for 28 years. Blagojecvich promised the voters he would end the corruption and "clean house". Voters of Illinois figured that it would be best to begin anew with new leadership. Thus, the Democrats had a big win at the state level in 2002. Again, Durbin won re-election, that isn't saying much though.

Also note that 10 of the 19 U.S. Representatives from Illinois are Republican. Therefore, there is a small glimmer of hope for the Republicans in Illinois. Many people have stated in other threads that it is the House of Representatives that determines which way the country is going, either Republican or Democrat, and since the House is in Republican control, that would lead you to the assumption that the majority of the country are Republicans. Then I suppose this logic can be applied to the state of Illinois. Since there are 10 Republicans to 9 Democrats, accordingly, Illinois’s  political beliefs lie in the Republican arena.

The Democratic Nominee won't "easily" win Illinois, and neither will Bush. Illinois is a swing state and always will be for quite some time. No amount of state level corruption could stop this.

And furthermore, no candidate should ignore the Midwest states, since it is truly the Midwest that decides elections. I think this is the reason why most states go one way or the other. People say "Hey, those states aren't going to vote for us, so f**k em!" Thus, the state votes for the other party, and in essence f**ks the candidate.

But yes, it wouldn't surprise me if Illinois voted Democratic in 2004. Since current Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R) is stepping down, and with no good Republican contenders, and some good Democratic contenders, (including well known State Comptroller Dan Hynes) I would assume that the next U.S. Senator from Illinois will be a Democrat. The majority of the 19 Congressional districts will undoutedly stay in Republican control. But as far as the Presidential election, you can pretty much flip a coin. Although Bush's chances don't look too good. If Bush wins Illinois it will be 52% for Bush 47% for the Democrat. If the Democrat wins it'll be 55% for the Democrat, 44% for Bush.

Sorry for going on about this. Since this is a thread discussing Minnesota in 2004, I shouldn’t have gone on about Illinois. I predict in the near future, there will be threads for all the swing Midwest states, WI, IA, MO, IL, MI, IN (oops not Indiana )

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Demrepdan]

Nobody in their foggiest dreams thought Reagan would carry Rhode Island and Hawaii in 1984, but he did. So far, Bush's utter unpopularity has been severely underestimated by the media and others.

If I didn't know any better about how ingrained Republican vote fraud is, then I wouldn't even count Texas as safe for him.

You may indeed be right.

[Demrepdan]

Good post.  What about Jack Ryan ( =man I wish he ha a different last name) for Senate.  Heard he is a leading candidates looks good and got plenty of money for GOP side in senate race.

Jack Ryan
Andy McKenna
Jim Oberweis

Those Republican candidates, pretty much in order, have a good chance of winning the nomination, and possibly the Senate election in Illinois. A person who had a DAMN good chance to win the nomination and even a better chance of winning the election, refused to run.
Former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R) (1991-1999) who is extremely popular throughout the state and won the support of both Republicans and Democrats. He would be an excellent candidate, but he said he wants to spend more time with his family....pffffph...idiot.

Yeah! And what's with all these RYANS?! George Ryan, Jim Ryan (who ran for governor in 2002) Jack Ryan. And NONE of them are related to each other!!
There are just a BUNCH of RYANS running around all over the place!!! It's enough to make a person SICK!!

No offense to Ryan, one of the Senior Members of the Forum.

[Nym90]

True, Illinois is competitive, but it has been more Democratic than the nation as a whole in every presidential election since 1980. In the 1990's, it began to swing even more Democratic. Combine that with the near Democratic lock on statewide elected offices as well and it's easy to see why Illinois would not be described as a swing state anymore. Clearly the Dems are the dominant party in Illinois.

[DarthKosh]

I think the Democrats actually have a shot at winning Indiana.

No they don't.

[DarthKosh]

Nobody in their foggiest dreams thought Reagan would carry Rhode Island and Hawaii in 1984, but he did. So far, Bush's utter unpopularity has been severely underestimated by the media and others.

If I didn't know any better about how ingrained Republican vote fraud is, then I wouldn't even count Texas as safe for him.

Wow that's all I have to say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nader won 5% in 2000. Where will they go?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Nader won 5% in 2000. Where will they go?

Nader still might enter the race. I fear that would only help Bush' Re-Election bid. Nader helped the Republicans in 2000.

[DarthKosh]

Nader won 5% in 2000. Where will they go?

To Nader Because he is problely going to run again.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Nader won 5% in 2000. Where will they go?

To Nader Because he is problely going to run again.

I hope not!

[Michael Z]

Nader won 5% in 2000. Where will they go?

Nader still might enter the race. I fear that would only help Bush' Re-Election bid. Nader helped the Republicans in 2000.

From politics1.com:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still, I don't think Nader will do as well in 2004. Three years ago he attracted a big protest vote from Democrats who felt alienated by Gore; this time around stopping Bush will be more important to them, and they'll get behind whoever the Democratic candidate is. At least that's how I see it.

[Ryan]

Yeah! And what's with all these RYANS?! George Ryan, Jim Ryan (who ran for governor in 2002) Jack Ryan. And NONE of them are related to each other!!
There are just a BUNCH of RYANS running around all over the place!!! It's enough to make a person SICK!!

No offense to Ryan, one of the Senior Members of the Forum.

ROTFWL none taken
Goddamn Gov. George goddamn R***...........brought disrepute to a perfectly distinguished and respectable name

[DarthKosh]

Nader won 5% in 2000. Where will they go?

Nader still might enter the race. I fear that would only help Bush' Re-Election bid. Nader helped the Republicans in 2000.

From politics1.com:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still, I don't think Nader will do as well in 2004. Three years ago he attracted a big protest vote from Democrats who felt alienated by Gore; this time around stopping Bush will be more important to them, and they'll get behind whoever the Democratic candidate is. At least that's how I see it.

I think Nader will do better when Dean tries to move to the middle after the primaries.

[John]

People Has a Desion to Make in Minnestoa & The Rest of the States that have a Right to Vote in Election 2004 & See if their Party won or Not
Here is My Preaction
it will be Cose
Bush: 50%
Dean: 47%

[jravnsbo]

good point darth