2004 Democratic Primary

[Ryan]

Something to remember is Mississippi's majority law:

If no candidate gets 50% +1, the election goes to the State House.

Interesting! Y'know the same applies for Presidential elections. If no one gets a majority of electoral votes it goes to the house of reps. However I understand its not a simple vote. Each delegation casts one vote, which is determined by the will of the majority of the delegation.

I'm not 100% sure about this but if its true its throws up some interesting possibilities. In the 2000 election if the House decided it (and all party members voted for their party’s candidate) then Gore would have won Texas, Mississippi and North Dakota while Bush would have won Connecticut & Delaware among others. :)Incidentally in such an election Bush would have won as the GOP holds most state delegations.

Still not 100% on the whole thing though. Will post an inquiry on the qt/Ans forum.

[Ryan]

Btw I forgot to ask you Realpolitik, as you mentioned this rule, I assume that there are other candidates running who can be expected to win at least 1% of the votes??? Could you provide a bit more info on that?? thanks

[Ryan]

I'm curious as to the ideological differences between the Lib Dems and Labour. They do seem quite alike in General (actually Lib Dems and "Old" Labour seemed quite alike)

Even better I would like to know about differences in the voter base or the two parties. Granted both have left-leaning voters but are there demographic differences??
Would appreciate any insight you guys have on this??

[Ryan]

I would caution against using bellwethers that didn’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 that decade.  

The exact same applies for Illinois. It is competitive only if there is a republican landslide. I don’t rule out that happening but until there is a definite sign of it, Il. Remains in the solid democrat column.

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

[Ryan]

Illionois looks unwinnible for the GOP at present, though I won't rule out an upset.
But people there are still pissed off with Ryan.

WV is being treating by all sides a Dem auto-gain, Bush has done nothing for the coal industry and has wrecked the education system and the states budget.

I agree with the Illinois conclusion (refer last post) However I note that you attribute this to the unpopularity of the last Republican Governor who was thoroughly repudiated by his own party the GOP.
In West Virginia's case however the mess you attribute entirely to Bush despite the fact that a generally unsuccessful and unpopular DEMOCRATIC Governor rules the state.

Anyhows just pointing that out, .........as to the auto-gain part as pete pointed out it depends entirely upon the dem. nominee. If its someone like Gephardt then I may agree its a likely dem gain (though not auto). However if its Dean or the like then the cultural differences which sunk Gore will again deliver the state to Bush.

[Ryan]

I am among the growing group of people observing the economy who believe that the Bush tax cuts have worked as did Reagans before them. However what political dividends it may or may not pay are still far from certain. This is because of the so-called "Jobless Recovery".
I am enlosing an article by Charlie Cook which gives a simple but useful overview of the problem.

When we get the first look at economic growth numbers for the third
quarter of this year on Thursday, those Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
figures may well show impressive economic growth -- a sign that
President Bush's tax cut-oriented economic growth package did in fact
stimulate the economy. History has shown that economic growth through
the second quarter of the election year usually results in re-election
for incumbent presidents. But the question today is whether that
relationship will remain as strong in 2004 as it has been in the past.
                     
Despite the fact that the economic downturn "officially" began in March
2001 and ended in November 2001, there has been a net loss of 2.6
million jobs since the president took office, giving weight to the term
"jobless recovery." A recent paper by two economists with the Federal
Reserve Board of New York show quite clearly that the most recent
economic downturn and recovery is very different from past ones.
Furthermore, they suggest that economic growth figures in the near term
may not be accompanied by the same kind of net job growth in the future.
           
Writing in the August issue of "Current Issues in Economics and
Finance," Erica L. Groshen and Simon Potter looked at the pattern of
layoffs and job creation during and after the last six economic
downturns. Observing that "recessions mix cyclical (temporary) and
structural (permanent) adjustments," Groshen and Potter found that 49
percent of the job losses were cyclical in the economic downturns of
both the mid-1970s and the early 1980s. These are temporary layoffs
whereby an employer "suspends" an employee's job because of reduced
demand for goods or services, and then recalls that employee when the
economy turns around, fueling fast payroll growth. In those two
downturns, the other 51 percent of job losses were more structural, or
permanent, layoffs -- where an employee's job is simply eliminated and
he or she is forced to seek a new job. Given that new job creation takes
much longer than simply recalling former workers, structural losses are
far more serious.
                           
That 49 percent cyclical/51 percent structural mix of the 1970s and 80s
changed to 43 percent cyclical and 57 percent structural in the economic
downturn of the early 1990s, as more jobs were either relocated to other
countries or eliminated completely. For the most part, this shift went
unnoticed.

In the current economic downturn and recovery, however, Groshen and
Potter found that 79 percent of job losses were structural and only 21
percent were cyclical. Jobs in the fields of communications, electronic
equipment and securities and commodities brokers were largely
eliminated. Indeed the only field that has truly prospered through this
period is in the standard industrial code of "non-depository
institutions" -- a group that notably includes mortgage brokers, who
have benefited greatly from historically low interest rates and strong
home buying and refinancing.
                           
Equally alarming but more anecdotal are stories of high technology or
other "knowledge-based" jobs increasingly shifting abroad, whether it is
call centers handling customer service and technical support or computer
programming and other highly skilled jobs. I recently heard of some
corporate legal departments shifting more rudimentary legal work --
drafting contracts and the like -- to India, an English-speaking country
that uses the same English common-law legal system as the United States.
       
No doubt some of these structural job losses are the result of the
impressive productivity gains that American corporations have enjoyed in
recent years due to automation and more efficient processes. But it is
also clear that many of these losses are trade-related. As long as
trade-related job losses were confined largely to relatively low-skilled
manufacturing jobs, many thought it was unfortunate but inevitable.
Low-skill jobs like producing pencils could be done abroad more cheaply
and efficiently than by higher-paid Americans under more strict
environmental and safety standards. But as the job losses have shifted
to higher-skill sectors -- the very jobs for which displaced workers
were told they should retrain -- this becomes a far more serious
problem.
                         
While few believe the solution is to construct trade barriers in this
country, the latest round of structural job losses is a far different
and greater problem than we have experienced in the past. And it isn't
just an economic or trade problem. It also is a political problem.
Sooner or later, voters will demand answers from their elected officials
or candidates for Congress and president.

[Ryan]

In many states, independents and even Republicans may vote in the democratic primaries.
Dave

Does anyone have a list of the states where members of the other party and/or independents can vote in either or both parties primaries??

[Ryan]

When is the deadline for Independent candidates to get into the race? I understand that some states have their own deadlines to get on the ballot.

I ask so as to know how much time Sharpton has after the dem. primaries are over to decide to run on his own.

[Ryan]

Its a good idea to name the districts and you guys have obviously put in a great deal of effort on it and though I havent read em closely, it looks like you have done a good job.

However I want to ask whether you have found any districts which really cant be given any single name as due to gerrymandering they stretch over large areas, many counties or cities. How do you deal with these?

Also you would have had to make many changes if you had done this before the post  2000 redistricting. Which congressional districts are these?

[Ryan]

Point taken. However be careful of predicting popular opinion based on media commentary or if you do, at least look at the track record of the specific media outlet you consider.

For instance if you go by the NYT almost every ill in America is due to Bush while the WSJ says the opposite. But I know liberal and conservative readers of both the WSJ and the NYT and while they are generally happy with these papers they do not take everything they read there at face value.
If you find usually conservative or moderate papers panning Bush, then maybe you have a reason to say there could be a decline in support.

Also dont forget that you have presumably seen only those media outlets which have an internet presence and these would be mainly newspapers. Others will disagree but I have found majority of US local newspapers to be left-of-center. Local Television stations are less so and Radio especially talk radio balances out the print media's leftward bias. These probably wont have a net presence so you havent got a complete picture of media coverage in WV.

Btw I reiterate that I think WV is competitive. My purpose is to warn you against predicting popular reaction based on media reporting especially if you rely on the net for that. It doesn’t present a complete picture.

[Ryan]

Do you feel that naming CD's may cause confusion as after each redistricting a seat may no longer represent much of an area by which it is named?

Naming them by Historical figures may be better.

Personally I for some reason prefer the current numbering system but I your work is pretty interesting nevertheless.

[Ryan]

No...no... There are plenty of of 'em left...
Problem for the Dems is that they only seem to vote Democrat at state and local level...

This has been a matter of debate for some years. Democrats are registered at far higher numbers than Republicans in the South but vote solidly GOP in national elections. Its not certain whether most of them consider themselves actually democrat or whether they self-identify as republicans but havent got around to changing their registration.

Its very interesting if you compare these PARTY ID figures with the PARTY REGISTRATION figures in states which register by party: (I got these figures from old forum, I think posted by JMFST-not sure )
They are all R%-D%:

Florida - 38%-40% ID, 39%-43% REG

Kentucky - 39%-46% ID, 33%-60% REG.  According to state election board figures, of those who actually turned out, their registration was 34%-61%.

Louisiana - 34%-48% ID, 22%-61% REG

North Carolina - 38%-41% ID, 34%-51% REG

Oklahoma - 44%-42% ID, 36%-55% REG

As to the South voting democrat in local elections, I have been told that for state legislatures and the like the level of gerrymandering is even higher than for Congressional seats and it is a useful method for democratic majorities to retain that status even if they have lost the support of the majority of voters.
However I admit I have not myself checked on this and cannot vouch for this information.

[Ryan]

I'm gonna have to disagree that Musgrove's campaign was horrible. It wasnt perfect but quite decent. I really think his vote total was the most any democrat could be expected to get in Mississippi right now (with a strong GOP challenger) The negative connotations to the word "democrat" are just too strong right now.

And yes I do know recent Miss. Gubernatoral history. Its no longer valid. The south is changing and changing fast and its not looking good for the dems.

[Ryan]

Looking at the House results, Arkansas is a Democrat stronghold(if the popular vote is adjusted they won about 60%), and I think most Democrats will be able to win it in 2004.
Ditto WV.

Problem is neither are very large, and if Bush can pick up Wisconsin and Oregon it would negate those possible gains.

Agcat brought up a good point about using congressional elections as predictors for Presidential elections.

I would go furthur and say that even out of the south their relevance is much less than you might think.

Reason is that in some very uncompetitive states or rather seats the other party often doesnt field a serious candidate against a popular incumbent. The latter ends up winning with something like 90% even though the actual partisan alignment in the seat may be about 50-50. This result will of course prejudice the total state congressional percentages that you seem so fond of.

The conclusion is dont assume party strength based on congressional results.

[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.

[Ryan]

My sincerest apologies to all those who already read this. I've have corrected the punctuation screwups I had made earlier which were destroying the post.  

Please note that while this focuses on Louisiana, the conclusions apply to most of the South and Southern voters in general.


Firstly the most important question- Will Bush win La. in 2004. The answer is YES (in any event) but the degree of certainty for that depends on the Dem candidate.
Let me expand;

La. had long been a democratic stronghold very much in tune with the Solid South. It has shifted to the GOP in recent years in keeping with trends in the whole south. Many voters have however until quite recently considered themselves more or less independent, generally voting GOP nationally and Democrat locally. Since loyalty/ fondness for the GOP was not established it was possible for democrats with the right policy and persona to capture even reasonably conservative votes. This is why such a large number found it easy to vote for Clinton in the 90s. Numerous others (who in La. at least were mostly people would have voted GOP as second choice) voted for Perot (12 % in 92 and 7% in 96).
This has changed slowly but steadily over the last five years or so. More and more Voters in La. now consider themselves actually republican and look at democrats as the opposition. It doesn't make it impossible for democrats to win but they would have to stake themselves out as clearly conservative or at least moderate in a way that Clinton did not have to do. In short, for democrats in La., The bar has got higher.

Now I turn to a more detailed look at possibilities for 2004.
La. is not as rock Solid a Bush /Republican state as say neighboring Mississippi. It is certainly politically competitive but as specified above, depending upon the candidates.

Ø   If the republican candidate is in tune with southern voters (esp. but not only, if he himself is Southern) and the democrat is not, its a certain GOP victory. Eg. Bush and Dean.

Ø   If its the other way around (depending on other specifics) I can see democrats having a slight edge.
Eg. I consider the 96 Clinton-Dole contest as a part example for this. Dole never really caught fire in the South. Never gave anyone the feeling that he's one of us as Bush definitely does.
This scenario (Good Dem and Bad GOP candidates) doesn't apply to 2004 as Bush DEFINITELY appeals to La. voters on every level.  

Ø   If both GOP and DEM candidates can appeal to southern voters then its certainly a contest but Id give a definite edge to the GOP. Eg. Bush and Clark. – Presuming he doesn't collapse soon, Clark may have a shot but personally, unless he's winning the national election by a large margin, I still consider La. safe for Bush. Even in this scenario its still better than 50-50 for Bush.

[Ryan]

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.

Good sum-up

[Ryan]

Where can we see the final predictions of each member??

Also I trust we will be seeing your map as well Dave
I know that most of your time goes in quantifying and analysing prior elections but knowing that you are a political junkie like the rest of us, you must spend some  time (if you r like me; Too Much time) in predicting election results.

[Ryan]

At the start I was rooting for Kerry, but frankly his campaign has been hapless beyond belief (Jim Jordan, etc). Honestly, he makes Bob Dole look suave. Fortunes can change of course, but even Bill Bradley looked better at this stage for 2000.

Charlie Cook has done a good piece on how Kerry has screwed up and How Dean has hurt him the most. I had actually thought of the many of the same points and noted them down but I think you would prefer to get Charlie Cooks read on it

Think about Kerry's career. He came back from combat duty in Vietnam,
testified against the war before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
and later became a leader in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Once
elected to the Senate, Kerry seemed to get himself into virtually every
liberal cause that came through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
If there were three Democrats in the Senate that one might guess would
be opposed to the war in Iraq, Kerry would be one of them. In voting for
Iraq resolution, Kerry voted against everything he had ever represented
and effectively cut himself off from his own base. This has become a
particular problem for Kerry because he and Dean share a constituency --
younger, well-educated, more affluent liberals, especially in New
England. Just as Gephardt's appeal has been strongest among older, more
populist and more unionized -- particularly industrial union -- voters,
and Lieberman's appeal is to older, more conservative and Jewish voters,
Kerry and Dean have been fighting over the same turf.

These Democrats saw many of their party's leaders "abandon them" and
sought out the most visible opponent of the war they could find, and
they had to look hard before they found Dean. Until the war issue came
along, Dean had been using Vermont's civil unions law as a way to show
that he wasn't just another politician who just licked a finger and put
it up in the air. The irony, of course, is that Kerry took what he and
many other Democrats thought was the politically safest course of action
rather than what almost everyone believes his conscience told him to do.
This is certainly not to suggest that every Democrat in Congress who
supported the war was violating their conscience. Does anyone really
believe that Lieberman's position is anything but his own? But for some,
their behavior on the Iraq vote was completely inconsistent from
everything they have ever been and done.

While polls show that a majority of Democrats prefer a candidate that
voted for the war but don't like how President Bush has conducted the
war, these are not the voters that Kerry was going for and that Dean
got. Those Democrats are the ones driven to vote because they are
against the war and of course they are choosing Dean over Kerry and doing it in droves.

[Ryan]

I have started a discussion thread in the < 2004 U.S. Presidential Election > section to discuss "What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004 ?"

Look forward to hearing others responses

[Ryan]

I just read Al Gore's screed printed in USA TOday by Moveon.Org and he seems to have moved to the left (even more than 2000).  If Dean is nominated he will support him to ingratiate himself with Dean's supporters.  When Dean loses Gore will try to capture his supporters for his run in 2008.

To live up to his self appointed elder statesman role he would have to be front and center in supporting the candidate whoever it is.

[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.

[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.