Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 20, 2019, 05:09:43 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 Democratic Primary
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 59 Print
Author Topic: 2004 Democratic Primary  (Read 395023 times)
TomC
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,896


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2003, 07:42:47 pm »
« edited: December 29, 2005, 01:58:15 pm by Governor TCash »

I predict a narrow Dem victory, but slightly different state results. Differences w/ English marked *:


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logged
Peter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,031


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2003, 08:39:25 pm »

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

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

Peter
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2003, 01:07:30 am »

Time remaining: 7 Hours 23 Minutes

tick...tick...tick...tick...
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2003, 01:22:05 am »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poll shows Barbour with lead

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

tick...tick...tick...tick...
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2003, 04:04:31 am »

Mississippi's electoral laws make a close race even more interesting:
If no candidate gets over 50% it goes to the Democrat dominated State House.
In other words, Barbour could end up ahead of Musgrove by a decent margin, but still lose.

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

All three are worth a watch.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2003, 04:15:15 am »

Actually I want Michael Howard(nee Hecht) against Micheal Kerr(the Earl of Ancram).

A hypocrite against an Earl?
Wonderful!

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

Watch for an IDS loyalist candidate.
Maybe Owen Paterson.

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

Remember...a week to go yet...
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2003, 04:21:26 am »

Maybe some of the newer M.P's?

Chris Bryant(Rhondda) perhaps? Tom Watson(West Bromwich East)?
Logged
English
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,187


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 30, 2003, 05:40:13 am »

If Howard gets it I predict the Tories will slip into third place behind the Liberal Democrats. He will never appeal to young wavering Labour voters such as myself. For one thing he is too old, secondly, he is too right wing and a social conservative which will turn off anyone under 40 in droves. He is also a relic from the 1980's Thatcher government, people don't want taking back to those days. They should elect a fresh face such as Oliver Letwin or Boris Johnson, not harped back to the 80's.
Logged
English
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,187


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 30, 2003, 06:02:32 am »

I know it's a bit early, but I would give the major parties the following

Labour 345
Conservative 150
Liberal Democrat 125

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

Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 30, 2003, 10:00:07 am »

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

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

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

---

tick...tick...tick...tick...KABOOOOOOOOOM!
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 30, 2003, 10:17:51 am »
« Edited: October 30, 2003, 10:21:00 am by jmfcst »

Realpolitik:<<jmfcst can spin things anyway he want's.
The fact's are simple: the U.S economy is in a mess.
Finis. >> (6:03 am on July 26, 2003 (about midway thru 2003Q3)

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

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

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

---

Realpolitik,

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

Finis.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 30, 2003, 10:52:38 am »

A cruel responce to that would be Bush's poor polling numbers.
But I'm not a bastard and won't.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2003, 10:58:25 am »
« Edited: October 30, 2003, 11:06:35 am by jmfcst »

US Senator Zell Miller (Dem, GA) Endorses BUSH in 2004

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

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2003, 11:08:40 am »

Howard *is* a dream opposition leader from Labour's point of view. The Tories seem to want to replace an uncharismatic, unpopular right-winger, with an uncharismatic, hated right-winger.
Who is also on the Liberals "decapitation" list...

Who hoo!
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2003, 11:47:18 am »

Labour 420-380
Conservative 200-100
Liberal Democrat 130-20
SNP 8-1
PC   5-0
Independent 1(Dr Taylor if he runs again)

Lab 48-36
Con 24-34
LD   18-30
Logged
English
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,187


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2003, 11:55:53 am »

Quite! Howard was very authoritarian when Home Secretary in the 90's and he upset a lot of people. I recall him overruling judges on many occassions. I cannot see him being very popular with the voters, not unless they're manufacturers of CCTV cameras! I must admit he is a good speaker, but not a particularly endearing one, I personally find him rather frightening. No, the Tories have made a serious error in picking Howard.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 30, 2003, 12:05:10 pm »

The LibDems are not even close to being a threat to Labour in the Northern Cities.
They are no-where in Newcastle, have been seriously hurt by council cock-ups/corruption in Sheffield and Liverpool, and them holding a seat in L'Pool prior to '97 was only because of the "Alton Factor".

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

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

Howard, May, Davis and Letwin are all in *serious* trouble next time round.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 30, 2003, 12:07:14 pm »

Paxman(the "Evil Jeremy") repeated a question to him *14 times* in 1997...and he still couldn't give a straight answer!
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,504
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 30, 2003, 12:10:04 pm »

Don't you mean "democrat"?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 30, 2003, 12:23:55 pm »
« Edited: October 30, 2003, 03:40:16 pm by jmfcst »

<<A cruel responce to that would be Bush's poor polling numbers.>>

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

Barring another major terrorist attack on the US mainland, Bush's reelection is a given.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2003, 12:32:37 pm »
« Edited: October 30, 2003, 03:00:16 pm by jmfcst »

Senate GOPers Fail to Break Pickering Filibuster

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

This will certainly help Barbour.

tick...tick...tick...tick...
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,223
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 30, 2003, 01:47:13 pm »

Here's what is really important about the GDP figures just released:

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

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

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

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

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

---

Conclusion....this report is about as good as it gets, the private sector increased sales (without decreasing savings) at the fastest pace in 25 years!  Furthermore, there is a BUTT LOAD of momentum in this report that will carry the economy forward thru 2004.
Logged
DarthKosh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 902


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 30, 2003, 02:38:17 pm »

Senate GOPers Fail to Break Pickering Filibuster

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

This will certainly help Barbour.

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

It will definitely help the white vote go for Barbour.
Logged
DarthKosh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 902


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 30, 2003, 02:39:24 pm »

Pennsylvania 10th could also be named anthracite because of the coal was mined here.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,896


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 30, 2003, 05:13:07 pm »
« Edited: May 22, 2006, 11:38:35 pm by AFCJ TCash »


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

Geez, what a buzzkill!

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not against term limits, but I don't believe it's appropriate for the federal to mandate limits on the regions.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 59 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC