2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Gustaf]

It's not my real name, it's actually a pseudonym I stole from a French cartoon artist...

About the only soft spot I have for the French might be their animation-- Babar, Tin-Tin, Madeline, Triplettes... I guess maybe you could stick Amelie there, too, I suppose.

Tintin is Belgian, like most French-speaking cartoons. I believe Lucky Luke comes from Belgium as well.

[Gustaf]

It's not my real name, it's actually a pseudonym I stole from a French cartoon artist...

About the only soft spot I have for the French might be their animation-- Babar, Tin-Tin, Madeline, Triplettes... I guess maybe you could stick Amelie there, too, I suppose.

Tintin is Belgian, like most French-speaking cartoons. I believe Lucky Luke comes from Belgium as well.

But I think a French company made the animated shows of it.

I wouldn't know...it's hard to distingiush, since French is an official language in Belgium. It's funny though, that Hergé, the creator of Tintin, was Flemish, but still wrote in French.

[Gustaf]

Hello all:  

Its been quite some time since I last posted, and Kerry winning Iowa was a shock to me.  Anyway, two days ago I found an article from the Drudge Report that I think all of you should read so I shall post it here:

YOUNG VOTERS SAID TO BE TRENDING TOWARDS BUSH
 
Date:  Tuesday, January 20, 2004  

Morton Kondracke in fresh ROLL CALL:

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats:  In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote.  And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating.  Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "Its called the history of political socialization.  Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group.  Why? Because two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover.  And who are the most Republican? People in their forties, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan.  If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a farily good chance that we'll have your support ."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base is anchored in the religious right.  In fact, Demcratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis, and Stan Greenburg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions, and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.  

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."

END  - www. drudgereport.com/flash4.htm    

That's that.

I encourage any responses to this posting.  
Sleep tight and vote for Howard Dean.


So long from the Empire State.

Welcome back. Have you come a few hours earlier you might have helped us win the fantasy election...

I would suggest another thread for this discussion, this is supposed to be about predictions, more precisely for the posted prediction maps. I will see you when you make a thread for this one!

[Gustaf]

Hello again from the Empire State:

The reason why I did not visit the site until yesterday was because my computer needed to be fixed.  It is good to know that I was missed.  

First, how do I set up a thread for my drudge report submission? The main reason why I put my message on this forum was because I thought the information was relevent to this discussion topic.  

Secondly, I was originally born in Missouri and I have lived in NY for most of my life.  Yet I don't know why many easterners refer to Missouri as "Mizzourah."  Maybe I will find out someday.

Later All.

You enter the board, click on the button that says "create new topic" and you fill in a headline and an initiating message. It does have some bearing, but we try to keep different variations somewhat apart, since the entire board is dedicated to the 2004 race.

[Gustaf]

Dean has dropped down to 10 points behind Kerry in NH, and he used to lead there by 30 points.  I think that the final nail is in the coffin.

I think that we need to watch out for Clark now. If he makes a reasonable showing in NH while Dean goes down, then Clark will be the only remainging strong candidate in the Feb 3rd states. Unless Kerry and Edwards get a really strong momentum.

[Gustaf]

I guess you didn't see the deabte last night, gustaf, but clark was horrible.  He made no sense.  That's why I said he shoudl wear a shirt that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'  This thing is between Kerry and edwards, the southern moderate anbd the Northeastern liberal.

No I didn't, since it was on about, oh, 3 am in the morning, and on week days I try to avoid being up that late...

Well, when Clark starts to go down in polls, I'll believe you.

[Gustaf]

HE hasn't really been up in the polls, so he won't go down.

They broadcast the debate in Sweden?

I have CNN, BBC World, Sky News and Fox News on my TV. To name a few...so I think I could watch the debates, at least if they're on one of these channels. But Swedish networks don't broadcast them, no. Btw, it was in one of the Swedish papers that the Dean-tape has now reached Sweden and is getting downloaded, spreading just as rapidly as in the US. Dean might have made his claim to fame...

[Gustaf]

The debate was on FOX News.

That's what I thought. I think I could have seen it then, but I didn't.

[Gustaf]

The debate was on FOX News.

That's what I thought. I think I could have seen it then, but I didn't.

It was on too late for you???

Well..you have to get up early for PE...huh?

Time zones, remember? Your prime time is something like 3 a.m. in Sweden, not a good time to be up. And yes, on Fridays i have to get up early for PE, what'swrong with that?

[Gustaf]

You have to go into school early for physical education.

Is the term wrong, or am I missing something? I remember that it was called PE when I was in the UK? Or do you mean some joke, like it is physically educating to get up early? In that case I didn't get it, but haha...

[Gustaf]

In america, PE stand for physical education.  what does it stand for in Sweden?

It isn't used in Sweden, it's called "Idrott&Hälsa", which would mean Health and, well athletic activities, or whatever. I used the term PE, b/c from my stay in the UK it seemed to be the English equivalent of the Swedish subject.

[Gustaf]

I still think that serving in a war is a brave thing to do. Showing opposition to it afterwards doesn't look bad to me. That's a Lee-thing in my opinion.

[Gustaf]

It was a very, very hard war to support as time went on.   Especially after the release of the Pentagon Papers.  I don't think anyone was untouched by it.   It was not as clear cut as WWII.    I think we'll get a chance to see the troops react again.

It was very far from being as clear cut as WWII.

[Gustaf]

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.

Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.

I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right?

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.

Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.

I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.

[Gustaf]

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.

Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right?

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.

Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.

I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.

[Gustaf]

Well, we'll never really know that for sure, but if New Hampshire on election day is clearly more Republican than the national average, as compared to 2000, and there is no other significant factor explaining this, then, but only then!, will I concede that you were right and I wrong...

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.

Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right?

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.

Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.

I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.

[Gustaf]

Yes, and I think muddled my post enough to allow me to weasel out, should New Hampshire mess up on election day...

winner!  ( just teasing, good discussion )

Well, we'll never really know that for sure, but if New Hampshire on election day is clearly more Republican than the national average, as compared to 2000, and there is no other significant factor explaining this, then, but only then!, will I concede that you were right and I wrong...

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.

Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right?

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.

Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.

I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.

[Gustaf]

Thanks! One has to be careful, you know...

I like your wit gustaf, funny post and still hedging your bet! :0

Yes, and I think muddled my post enough to allow me to weasel out, should New Hampshire mess up on election day...

[Gustaf]

GOP: subscribes to SI.

I've heard things like that a lot, which I find interesting because I follow sports but certainly am very liberal. Does anybody have an explanation for why sports fans tend to vote more GOP than the national average?

I know that in the 50s a very secret, and completely illegal, project was carried out in Sweden, where a group of children were picked out and monitored throughout their lives. Their political opinions were checked through bogus polls, and this was correlated with a lot of other information. It all came out in the 70s and was a big scandal. Rather few things could be correlated with political opinions though, outside the statistical MoE.

And the results were:

Communists were more intelligent than others

Social Democrats were less intelligent than others

Conservatives were more interested in sports (!)

and Center Party voters (kind of rural conservatives) liked motorcycles (that's really stupid, I know...)

That this was all that came out of it is kind of disappoiting, but it seems to confirm the sports-conservative correlation.

[Gustaf]

No kidding.  Double didgit inflation, 7.6% unemployment, 18% interest rates..... Sheesh.  Contrast that with the present unemployment rate of 5.7%, 2% inflation, mortgage rates at below 6%.  Of course, if you listen to all the rhettoric from the other side you'd think we were all eating in soup kitchens.

Sweden had 500% interest rates 10 years ago. Now that's a crisis for you...

[Gustaf]

Two Stars?  Five Stars?  What is that all about?

Hey did anyone else notice that the submitted board average is now a Democrat win in electoral votes?  What balderdash!  

I think the stars stand for excitement level, or something like that.

[Gustaf]

Hello -- This is my first post. Today I posted my first election prediction map. I love this stuff, and have been doing these kinds of maps for years. This site is a delight.

It seems to me right now that Bush will win...

Welcome to the forum!

I saw your prediction, and it seems like an overall good assessment, even though one could argue some individual states, such as New Hampshire or Oregon. But it's a fairly likely outcome, I will agree to that.

[Gustaf]

Like a lot of people he seems to think that WV miners voted en masse for Bush... though I'm not sure where people get that idiotic idea from...

WV always has a low turnout... especially in the ultra-Democrat south of the state... where something like 90% of all coal in WV is mined.

How do you know all this about West Virginia?  I guess you made a good avatar choice

I think Kerry is a weak candidate, because he starts out with so little and has to fight for everything else.  From the beginning, he has NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, HI, DC, and that's it.  That's only 76 Ev's, so he has to win the other 194 EV's in battleground or semi-battleground states.

Lol...he probably knows more about WV than you do about Utah or Wyoming, don't you think?

I think Kerry will do better than that, the country is sufficiently polarized for him to do reasonably well.

[Gustaf]

I think Kerry will do better than that, the country is sufficiently polarized for him to do reasonably well.

Yes, I do think he will do better than that, but he has to fight for most of what he's got.  Other than Hawaii and the northeast, nothing is safe for him.

It depends on how you define safe, few states are ever really safe, but I think Kerry should win states like VT, CA, IL, MD and WA without sweating too much.