2004 Democratic Primary

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<Must this be a competition?>>

Why shouldn't I let you bury yourself by your own words?  After all, you did presume to know my reading material and chastised me as a parrot of spin.

How many times do I have to ask for your opinion on 2003Q4?

---

<<I myself prefer His Holiness Pope Leo XIII encyclical on economics called Rerum Novarm.>>

I'm pretty ignorant of religious writings, with the exception of the bible.

[JNB]

 I stand by what I said, the numbers you put out are what the WSJ and the likes of Kudlow spins, and I stand by what I have said, the problems I have listed. If you are not parroting spin, ok, but to me, it sounds almost identical to a collum Kudlow wrote recently. The serious economists I have read and the people I know who have been invested in 25+ years realise the warning signs of a economy that depends too much on fiscal stimulus, and too little on savings, and I trust these people far more than I trust the hype.

  Bury myself in my own words, are we not laying on a bit thick? I gave my opinion on 2004 twice allready

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<the numbers you put out are what the WSJ and the likes of Kudlow spins>>

Sounds like you're the one reading the publications you accused me of reading.

---

<<Bury myself in my own words, are we not laying on a bit thick? I gave my opinion on 2004 twice allready>>

Yes, you did give us 2004, but you've refused to give us your opinion of the current quarter (2003Q4).

[StevenNick]

I think Bush will carry every state he carried in 2000 plus New Mexico, New Jersey, Maine, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota.

California, Washington, New York, Michigan, and Illinois are going to be competitive.

Here's my rationale:

New Mexico went Democrat in 2000 by the slimmest of margins.  Since 2000 Bush has increased his constituency more than enough to compensate for a 300-or-so vote loss there (Despite this third year slump he's just now coming out of Bush is looking good).  In New Jersey in 2003, Democrats won control of the state legislature, but only as a result of gerrymandering.  Republicans actually won a majority of the votes cast statewide.  Bush will win NJ in '04.

Depending on who the nominee is Bush's victory will be solid or a landslide.  Considering that the nominee seems likely to be Dean, a Bush landslide in '04 could may not be out of the question as some of those states I called competitive may line up with Bush.

[StevenNick]

If Al runs as an independent, Democrats are completely toast in 2004.  All the battleground states will go Bush.  It'll be a bloodbath with Bush skating to 350-400 electoral vote victory.  Popular vote is another story though.

[Paul]

I really can't see Gore running as an independent this time around.  If he wanted to run for President, he could've gotten into the Democratic primaries earlier this year.  All indications are that he would have run away with the race.
I think Gore might be saving up for an '08 run, maybe even against Hillary...but that's another story.

[Paul]

I'm not so sure that GOP votes at the state level equals a majority for Bush in 2004.  I doubt that many of those Republicans were as socially conservative as Bush.  
That being said, I think the idea of Bush picking up Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Oregon, and Minnesota is a good hypothesis.  Not only were totals close in those places in 2000, but self-identification as a Republican is up in some.

[Ryan]

LOL we are talking about two different Al's here Paul

The one whose Independent run we are wondering about is Sharpton!!!

I really can't see Gore running as an independent this time around.  If he wanted to run for President, he could've gotten into the Democratic primaries earlier this year.  All indications are that he would have run away with the race.
I think Gore might be saving up for an '08 run, maybe even against Hillary...but that's another story.

[Ryan]

Just for the record I dont think Al (Sharpton ) will run as an Indep. He knows he wont win the nomination but the whole thing is to increase his prestige WITHIN the democratic party.

Btw I must say he's been successful at that.

I really can't see Gore running as an independent this time around.  If he wanted to run for President, he could've gotten into the Democratic primaries earlier this year.  All indications are that he would have run away with the race.
I think Gore might be saving up for an '08 run, maybe even against Hillary...but that's another story.

[Paul]

Ah, sorry for the faux pas.  I saw Al Gore mentioned and simply couldn't restrain myself.
As far as Sharpton goes, I really don't see him running as an independent, although I would love it, both for partisan political reasons, but mainly for sheer entertainment value.

[DarthKosh]

I'm not so sure that GOP votes at the state level equals a majority for Bush in 2004.  I doubt that many of those Republicans were as socially conservative as Bush.  
That being said, I think the idea of Bush picking up Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Oregon, and Minnesota is a good hypothesis.  Not only were totals close in those places in 2000, but self-identification as a Republican is up in some.

And the lack of a strong dem canidate doesn't hurt.

[StevenNick]

If I had to guess I'd say that Al will run as an independent.  I think he really feels that the Democrats have ignored the needs of black voters.  From his point of view he can run in 2004, a race the dems probably won't win anyway, and spoil it for the nominee.  At least that way he can wield some influence in the democratic party in the future.

[Ryan]

err dude U sure about this..........U have NJ as definite and Wa. (ur home state) as competitive. At most it could could be the other way around.

I think Bush will carry every state he carried in 2000 plus New Mexico, New Jersey, Maine, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota.

California, Washington, New York, Michigan, and Illinois are going to be competitive.

Here's my rationale:

New Mexico went Democrat in 2000 by the slimmest of margins.  Since 2000 Bush has increased his constituency more than enough to compensate for a 300-or-so vote loss there (Despite this third year slump he's just now coming out of Bush is looking good).  In New Jersey in 2003, Democrats won control of the state legislature, but only as a result of gerrymandering.  Republicans actually won a majority of the votes cast statewide.  Bush will win NJ in '04.

Depending on who the nominee is Bush's victory will be solid or a landslide.  Considering that the nominee seems likely to be Dean, a Bush landslide in '04 could may not be out of the question as some of those states I called competitive may line up with Bush.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Carole James has been elected leader of the BCNDP.

Ernie Eves has resigned as leader of the Ontario Tories.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's probably worth mentioning that James is a  Metis and is probably the first Native American to lead a major political party.

[Demrepdan]

If I had to guess I'd say that Al will run as an independent.  I think he really feels that the Democrats have ignored the needs of black voters.  From his point of view he can run in 2004, a race the dems probably won't win anyway, and spoil it for the nominee.  At least that way he can wield some influence in the democratic party in the future.

Are you talking about Al Gore, as the person in the post before you was, or are you talking about Al Sharpton? If you're talking about Gore, there is no way in hell he would run as an independent. That would ruin his chances for the 2008 election. You can't run as an independent, not supporting your own party, and then HOPE to be nominated by your party again 4 years later. The Democrats would be outraged that Gore did this, and would never nominate him.

[jravnsbo]

OK I see BUsh with a 216-200 generic lead in EV.

Dems have tough Gore states to protect in MN, IA, WI, NM, OR and PA

BUsh's states at risk I think are FL, LA, AR, MO, NH and WV

THe GOP has alot of advantages in these states.  They have a lot of new registered voters, NH traditionally votes for GOP and hasn't gone Dem since LBJ I believe; FL I have discussed elsewhere as being BUSH country for both brothers; LA and Ar are socially conservative and Dem candidates there have to run as conservative to moderate at best.  

--also as some said with other states but no DEm President has won the presidency without 5 southern states, not one , but 5!

--oh and along those lines MO picked the winner from 1900 to 2000 every time but once went for Adlai Stevenson, well no state is perfect

[jravnsbo]

ok all the seats set--I think the GOP picks up seats and retains control.  Currently the GOP holds a 229-205-1 advantage.  The Dems need to NET 13 seats to gain control.  

I see the GOP picking up around 5-7 seats esp if the new Texas map stays in place.

The more the GOP gains this time the harder it will be for Dems to take control.  The Dems were gaining ground until 2002, now as many say I think the GOP maintains control through 2010.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Bush Dropping Steel Tariffs to Avert Trade War

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23899-2003Nov30?language=printer

----

It's certainly good news for the overall economy.

[StevenNick]

Probable Republican States:

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arizona (10)
Arkansas (6)
Colorado (9)
Florida (27)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Iowa (7)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (
Louisiana (9)
Maine (4)
Minnesota (10)
Mississippi (6)
Missouri (11)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
Nevada (5)
New Hampshire (4)
New Jersey (15)
New Mexico (5)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Ohio (20)
Oklahoma (7)
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania (21)
South Carolina (
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
Virginia (13)
West Virginia (5)
Wisconsin (10)
Wyoming (3)

Tossup States:

California (55)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Washington (11)

Democratic States:

Delaware (3)
D.C. (3)
Hawaii (4)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
New York (31)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)

Rep. 357
Dem. 77
Toss. 104

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Off topic.

[Nym90]

Actually Clinton won New Hampshire in 1992 and 1996. Other than that it hasn't gone for a Dem since Johnson though.

[jravnsbo]

i stand corrected on NH.  ty for correction.

[emergingDmajority1]

New Jersey as a republican state? are you crazy?!?!!? I take offense to that


Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wisconsin will also stay Dem. There is no evidence those states will swing to Bush. Just wishful thinking.

all 4 of these are Dem locks.

California (55)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Washington (11)


even Dean can win NJ

and if it's Gephardt/Edwards, we retain every state from 2000, perhaps gaining in Missouri and NH

[jravnsbo]

Well I think MN is definately in play along with WI, IA, OR, NM and PA for Dem side.

MNs were p*ssed in 2002 at the rally and swept GOP to wins in the Gov, Senate and increased state house maj and are closest  ever in St senate.  A lot of the suburban Twin Cities voters are becoming more and more GOP backers, plus as with other states the GOP registration drive in MN has hit full throttle.

Next a lot of the farm states will benefit from farm bill Pres Bush signed and most likely an energy bill in some form with ethanol provisions in it.

I do agree with you that NJ is a bit of a stretch.  They voted for Lautenberg with the scandal of switching candidates midstream, which I still think was reprehensible and I criticized the gOP for thinking about it in MT too.