2004 Democratic Primary

[DarthKosh]

Clinton?

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

[Beet]

"Maybe we really are moving towards a two-party system" - Junichiro Koizumi, after the "opposition" party made gains in diet elections

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

[Beet]

Lieberman, Edwards and Clark are definitely not liberals. The only prominent Democrat candidate to come out against the war was Dean. But I agree Dean doesn't have a change in LA.

[agcatter]

Neither do any of these three since they aren't going to be nomiated.

[agcatter]

Ryan,
How do you see the La. governor's race?

[DarthKosh]

Neither do any of these three since they aren't going to be nomiated.

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

[NorthernDog]

In addition, it is simplistic to say that Democratic economic policies will aid southerners, particularly the "poor" ones that Dean speaks about.  Maybe the southerners believe that lower taxes and greater economic freedom will lead to better job creation for them than higher taxes coupled with social programs.  

It's also worth noting that not everyone votes primarily on economic issues.  Michael Barone notes in "The Almanac of American Politics" that social values and depth of religious commitment are a bigger indicator of political preference than income.  Bush did poorly with secular voters in '00, but did well with highly observant Catholics and Protestants.  But I know that the pattern doesn't always hold true, because Reagan wasn't highly obseranvant yet crushed Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter in 1980. An exception to every rule.

[zorkpolitics]

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

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

[nclib]

In addition, it is simplistic to say that Democratic economic policies will aid southerners, particularly the "poor" ones that Dean speaks about.  Maybe the southerners believe that lower taxes and greater economic freedom will lead to better job creation for them than higher taxes coupled with social programs.  

It's also worth noting that not everyone votes primarily on economic issues.  Michael Barone notes in "The Almanac of American Politics" that social values and depth of religious commitment are a bigger indicator of political preference than income.  Bush did poorly with secular voters in '00, but did well with highly observant Catholics and Protestants.  But I know that the pattern doesn't always hold true, because Reagan wasn't highly obseranvant yet crushed Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter in 1980. An exception to every rule.

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

[Nym90]

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

[kemma]

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

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

[English]

In 2004 and in future elections I can see there being a very clear split in the vote. The North East and West coast I predict will continue to swing heavily to the Democrats. The entire south and west I believe will be lost for good and become staunchly Republican. Elections will be decided by the mid west states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.

[Ryan]

Ryan,
How do you see the La. governor's race?

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's going to be very close.
I will admit to being suprised to see Jindal leading in the New Orleans area and Blanco leading in Northern Lousiana(as at least one poll has), but the prospect of less ethnic voting in the Deep South is wonderful.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Results(according to BBC World) :

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It makes sense to divide the South into 4 different areas(the border used to define the South is the Mason-Dixon line, still used for census and polling data) :

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

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

Greater Texas:
Texas, Oklahoma

Florida:
Florida

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

[DarthKosh]

DC isn't in the south.  WV is the only souther state i think that will be in troble for Bush.

[DarthKosh]

It's going to be very close.
I will admit to being suprised to see Jindal leading in the New Orleans area and Blanco leading in Northern Lousiana(as at least one poll has), but the prospect of less ethnic voting in the Deep South is wonderful.

The latest poll has Jindal leading in nothern Louisiana.

[Demrepdan]

I would have to agree that D.C. is not in anyway part of the south. In fact I would argue that Maryland isn't part of the "modern" south.

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

[Michael Z]

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

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

[NorthernDog]

Georgia is nearly a mix between the deep south, and the "Greater Florida Region", if that's what you would want to call it. Florida and Georgia could very well vote Democratic. The states that you categorize as the deep south would most likely vote republican 9 out of 10 times. Thus, taking Georgia out of this category.

Georgia go Democrat? Have you ever heard of Zell Miller?  They can't even find a Democratic candidate to run for his seat next year, and he's voting for Bush himself.  

[agcatter]

No northern Democrat has carried Georgia since 1960.  Southernor Clinton couldn't even beat inept Dole there in 96.  And it gets worse.  In 2000 southernor Gore got drilled by 12 points by Bush.

[DarthKosh]

No northern Democrat has carried Georgia since 1960.  Southernor Clinton couldn't even beat inept Dole there in 96.  And it gets worse.  In 2000 southernor Gore got drilled by 12 points by Bush.

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

[agcatter]

Sounds like it's a classic case of the better candidate (Jindal) vs. the candidate with the biggest base.  Could go either way, but it appears it will be a cliffhanger.

[zorkpolitics]

Check out the Ballot Access News for the latest on which independent parties are on which state ballots:
http://www.ballot-access.org/

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

The reform party will not attract a viable candidate and have even less than the 0.4% they got in 2004.
Libertarians will be on all 50 state ballots and take about the same 0.4% as 2000.  Together both the Reform and Libertarian parties will reduce Bush’s vote by about 1%, enough to hurt Bush in close states (His margin of loss in 4 states, NM, WI, IA, OR, in 2000 was less than the vote for either the Reform or Libertarian Party)

Most interesting maybe Kucinich, one of his best friends and major supporters, Haglin, is the founder of the Natural Law party which was on most (maybe all?) state ballots in 2000.  This could be the perfect vehicle for Kucinich to carry on as the "true" progressive".  Sharpton might want to run as an independent, but I don't think he has any friends willing to give him a party line or the skills to organize a 50 state effort to get on the ballot.  Altogether if Nader, Kucinich and/or Sharpton ran on the Left it would probably drain 2-4% from the Democratic candidate, which could help Bush in the close states (he won two states in 2000 by less than the Green vote (NH and FL).