Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 17, 2019, 09:40:29 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 User Predictions - Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 ... 99 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 817879 times)
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1175 on: February 25, 2004, 01:43:24 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

True
After all, the states that Dubya's economic [mis]managment have hit hardest have a tendency to be small...

Which states are those?  The states in worst shape economically are mostly big, and mostly Dem.  Such as CA, WA, MI, IL.. also a few medium ones like OR and MA.  Its interesting how poorly the West Coast has done for a long time now - even before Bush was president.  
The only Republican states in anything close to bad shape are the Carolinas and they're not in any doubt going for Bush.  WV and PA are doing fine, better than OH, which is not that bad.
But the overarching truth is the economy isn't that bad anyway.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,704
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1176 on: February 25, 2004, 01:50:39 pm »

I'm NOT talking about GDP growth etc.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1177 on: February 25, 2004, 02:01:51 pm »


Yeah I know, I was talking about the unemployment rate.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,704
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1178 on: February 25, 2004, 02:09:27 pm »

Hah! A textile worker who loses his job and gets one at Walmart isn't going to be happy about it.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1179 on: February 25, 2004, 02:13:23 pm »

Hah! A textile worker who loses his job and gets one at Walmart isn't going to be happy about it.

Textile workers didn't make much anyway - not a significantly better job than WalMart.  Besides, my point was that the Carolinas are so strongly Republican that even some unemployment-induced voting will not shift them.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,704
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1180 on: February 25, 2004, 02:15:35 pm »

It's not just about the money... you seem to lack a basic understanding of people sometimes...
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1181 on: February 25, 2004, 02:20:12 pm »

not a bad analysis.  I still think Wisconsin will go with Kerry, and that Iowa is a tossup.  Ohio is also going to be close and I suspect WV will go to Kerry.  Nevada may also go to Kerry.  I think your percentages will be close +/- 2%, which pretty much tells you nothing.

My pick for the closest race is Ohio.

As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

From where I'm sitting, he needs about 52% approval ratings (not exactly a high bar to clear) to win, though the inevitable arrival of Ralph Nader to the party may change that. Smiley
I don't understand your popular vote analysis. It seems to me that Bush can win handily without even getting 50% of the PV.

Assume for a moment that there is no Nader vote (things only get worse for the Dems if there is), and that the total independent vote is the same 1% as 2000. Bush has to gain Gore and Nader voters from the last election to win.

If Bush wins half of the combined 2000 Gore-Nader margin in FL, he secures the state. The Gore-Nader margin was 1.63%, so Bush needs an additional 0.82% of total Floridians who voted Gore or Nader.

If we extrapolate to all states (making the assumption that each state's vote totals are affected by only one thing - a shift in the national PV), again, a 0.82% shift to Bush would secure FL. He would lose NH (where Gore-Nader had a greater PV margin) but would still win the election. His national PV would be his 2000 total of 47.87% + 0.82% = 48.7%. the Dems get 50.3%, lose this time with a majority of the PV (even worse than 2000, where they lost with a plurality).

Similarly, the way other states fall could be predicted by halving the Gore-Nader (or Bush) margin from 2000 and shifting it to the other side. You then know what shift in national PV is required to throw that state into the other column:

DEM ELECTORAL WINS

       Bush       Gore     Nader   Gore+ Nader  Margin      
VA   52.47%   44.44%   2.17%   46.60%   5.87%
WV   51.92%   45.59%   1.65%   47.24%   4.67%
AK   51.31%   45.86%   1.46%   47.32%   3.99%
AZ   50.95%   44.67%   2.98%   47.65%   3.30%
CO   50.75%   42.39%   5.25%   47.64%   3.11%
TN   51.15%   47.28%   0.95%   48.24%   2.91%
MO   50.42%   47.08%   1.63%   48.72%   1.71%
NV   49.52%   45.98%   2.46%   48.44%   1.08%
OH   49.97%   46.46%   2.50%   48.97%   1.00%


REP ELECTORAL WINS

FL   48.85%   48.84%   1.63%   50.47%   1.63%
IA   48.22%   48.54%   2.23%   50.77%   2.55%
NH   48.07%   46.80%   3.90%   50.70%   2.63%
NM   47.85%   47.91%   3.55%   51.46%   3.61%
WS   47.61%   47.83%   3.62%   51.45%   3.84%
OR   46.52%   46.96%   5.04%   52.00%   5.48%
PA   46.43%   50.60%   2.10%   52.70%   6.27%
MI   46.14%   51.28%   1.99%   53.27%   7.12%
MN   45.50%   47.91%   5.20%   53.10%   7.60%
WA   44.56%   50.13%   4.14%   54.27%   9.72%
               
U.S.   47.87%   48.38%   2.73%   51.12%   3.25%

SCENARIO 1 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327    Reps 211

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291    Reps 247

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

So according to this method, Bush gets a 300 EV win without even getting a majority of the PV (though beating the Dem's PV).
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1182 on: February 25, 2004, 02:24:13 pm »

It's not just about the money... you seem to lack a basic understanding of people sometimes...

I'll admit I have little experience with or understanding of either textile or WalMart workers - though I do occasionly shop at Supercenters when in the States (love the 24 hour convenience and insanely cheap prices).  But I will say neither group is likely to vote.   And if they did vote, they would certainly be unlikely to vote Republican anyway - so really not a big concern.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1183 on: February 25, 2004, 02:25:53 pm »

MortfromNY,

You're right, there's virtually zero chance of Bush winning the PV and losing the EC.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1184 on: February 25, 2004, 02:27:38 pm »

Woops!
Ignore the "Dem Electoral Wins" and "Rep Electoral Wins" in the preceding analysis.

Obviously, these are just sorted by margins of the win by Bush over Gore-Nader or vice-versa. FL and NH are the only Rep electoral wins in the lower group. The upper group are straight Rep PV and EV wins, with a Bush margin over Gore-Nader.

However, the argument holds despite the labeling mistake.
Logged
elcorazon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,340


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1185 on: February 25, 2004, 02:39:45 pm »

I tend to agree that a scenario where Bush is "Gored" is unlikely but you have to admit your analysis, while logical is simplistic.  The way it "could" happen is if some of the Bush states go for Bush, by wider margins than in 2000 (Florida would be a likely candidate), some Gore states go for Kerry (or Edwards) by a lesser margin than in 2000 (California is often cited as a possibility), but Kerry (or Edwards) manages to eke out a victory in, say Ohio, or NH & MO or some other combination which results in an electoral victory.  I don't see it, but it "could" happen.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,704
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1186 on: February 25, 2004, 02:46:34 pm »

I was using textile workers as an example (and in 2000 a lot did vote GOP. Not this year methinks).
Point is a lot of people are worse off than they were 4 years ago and most of these people are pretty pissed off with Dubya.
Logged
cskendrick
Rookie
*
Posts: 29


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1187 on: February 25, 2004, 03:12:55 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

True
After all, the states that Dubya's economic [mis]managment have hit hardest have a tendency to be small...

Which states are those?  The states in worst shape economically are mostly big, and mostly Dem.  Such as CA, WA, MI, IL.. also a few medium ones like OR and MA.  Its interesting how poorly the West Coast has done for a long time now - even before Bush was president.  
The only Republican states in anything close to bad shape are the Carolinas and they're not in any doubt going for Bush.  WV and PA are doing fine, better than OH, which is not that bad.
But the overarching truth is the economy isn't that bad anyway.

All politics is local, but all economics is personal.

And across time and the set of countries, the worst thing you can have for regime instability is high growth with most of the people getting very little of the proceeds.

A sustained disparity between market performance and net job creation (new jobs less net growth in the workforce) is not only bad news for the incumbent administration...it's bad news for the country at large.

Logged
cskendrick
Rookie
*
Posts: 29


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1188 on: February 25, 2004, 03:18:21 pm »

Hah! A textile worker who loses his job and gets one at Walmart isn't going to be happy about it.

Textile workers didn't make much anyway - not a significantly better job than WalMart.  Besides, my point was that the Carolinas are so strongly Republican that even some unemployment-induced voting will not shift them.

Not that I know anything about the Carolinas (see logo to upper left) but my mom is a diehard Republican and hangs out only with diehard Republicans.

None of them are voting Bush this time around, and now that Dean's no longer the nightmare alternative, they're contemplating either (a) voting Kerry/Edwards (they'd DEFINITELY vote Edwards at top billing) or (b) sitting this one out.

My mom's reasons: Bush promised to restore honesty to the White House....then he lied.

But that's anecdotal, and impossible to verify independently.

What I can validate is that if Bush's numbers drop to about 49%, he'll lose North Carolina no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

He'll lose South Carolina at about 47%.

Figure out the odds around those.

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,704
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1189 on: February 25, 2004, 03:33:20 pm »

Two excellent posts Cskendrick!
Not much for me to add... except this: the most recent "matchup" poll for SC I could find (done last autumn) had Bush below the National average.
Food for thought.
Logged
cskendrick
Rookie
*
Posts: 29


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1190 on: February 25, 2004, 03:34:58 pm »

not a bad analysis.  I still think Wisconsin will go with Kerry, and that Iowa is a tossup.  Ohio is also going to be close and I suspect WV will go to Kerry.  Nevada may also go to Kerry.  I think your percentages will be close +/- 2%, which pretty much tells you nothing.

My pick for the closest race is Ohio.

As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

From where I'm sitting, he needs about 52% approval ratings (not exactly a high bar to clear) to win, though the inevitable arrival of Ralph Nader to the party may change that. Smiley
I don't understand your popular vote analysis. It seems to me that Bush can win handily without even getting 50% of the PV.

....
             
SCENARIO 1 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327    Reps 211

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291    Reps 247

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

So according to this method, Bush gets a 300 EV win without even getting a majority of the PV (though beating the Dem's PV).

I've been treating Bush's job approval ratings as a proxy for the nationwide popular vote.

Some states have much higher concentrations of Bush supporters than others; which I took to mean that Bush needs greater than 50% approval ratings to win this time around.

I need to modify predictions based on Nader bleed-off, and I am waiting on some poll figures to come out before doing that.

At CURRENT poll ratings, these are my predictions, by state (moving average 50.8% Bush job approval)

State   % Bush
WY   61.5%
ID   60.2%
UT   59.6%
TX   57.7%
SD   57.4%
ND   57.2%
OK   55.4%
MT   55.2%
AK   54.7%
NE   54.6%
MS   54.4%
KY   53.9%
SC   53.4%
GA   53.1%
IN   52.9%
AL   52.8%
NC   52.7%
WV   52.3%
TN   52.3%
LA   51.6%
KS   51.6%
AR   51.4%
VA   50.2%
FL   50.1%

CO   49.9%
AZ   49.9%
MO   49.5%
NV   49.2%
OH   49.1%
IA   48.8%
NH   48.8%
NM   48.6%
WI   48.1%
OR   47.9%
MN   47.5%
MI   47.1%
ME   46.8%
WA   46.6%
PA   46.5%
VT   45.0%
IL   44.9%
CA   44.4%
DE   43.3%
NJ   43.1%
HI   43.0%
MD   42.8%
CT   41.8%
NY   41.7%
MA   39.9%
RI   38.7%
DC   29.4%

Pubs 219 Dems 319

If Bush gets his average approval ratings to 51.9%, he wins....not exactly a challenging goal.

We're close to the inflection point here, so miniscule changes in overall popularity carry significant weight.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1191 on: February 25, 2004, 03:39:54 pm »

I tend to agree that a scenario where Bush is "Gored" is unlikely but you have to admit your analysis, while logical is simplistic.  The way it "could" happen is if some of the Bush states go for Bush, by wider margins than in 2000 (Florida would be a likely candidate), some Gore states go for Kerry (or Edwards) by a lesser margin than in 2000 (California is often cited as a possibility), but Kerry (or Edwards) manages to eke out a victory in, say Ohio, or NH & MO or some other combination which results in an electoral victory.  I don't see it, but it "could" happen.
It could happen, but if you believe that FL will go to Bush, it's almost imperative that the Democrat take OH to make it a competitive EV race. If the PV stays close, that would mean that the Democrat manages to come away with a margin in OH that is skewed way off the 2000 results, i.e., wins a significant number of Ohio Bush voters from 2000. (Bush had a 1% margin over Gore+Nader in OH in 2000, so the Democrat needs to shift 0.5% of total voters AWAY from Bush PLUS win all the 2.5% of Nader voters in that state.

Other states present even more of a challenge to the Dems in a tight race, as the Bush margins over Gore+Nader in 2000 are even higher.

I believe Bush can lose only if he fails to gain an additional 1% of the total national vote, to bring his total at least to 48.8%. The Dems, however, cannot win unless they get at least 50.4%, a gain of a full 2% of the total nationwide vote.
Logged
cskendrick
Rookie
*
Posts: 29


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1192 on: February 25, 2004, 03:47:17 pm »

Two excellent posts Cskendrick!
Not much for me to add... except this: the most recent "matchup" poll for SC I could find (done last autumn) had Bush below the National average.
Food for thought.

Re: Props

Thanks! I'll take what I can get!

This is a tough room! Smiley

I find it difficult to imagine South Carolina turning on Bush, but then again I never thought I'd hear my mom saying that she intended to do so.
Logged
cskendrick
Rookie
*
Posts: 29


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1193 on: February 25, 2004, 03:52:56 pm »

I tend to agree that a scenario where Bush is "Gored" is unlikely but you have to admit your analysis, while logical is simplistic.  The way it "could" happen is if some of the Bush states go for Bush, by wider margins than in 2000 (Florida would be a likely candidate), some Gore states go for Kerry (or Edwards) by a lesser margin than in 2000 (California is often cited as a possibility), but Kerry (or Edwards) manages to eke out a victory in, say Ohio, or NH & MO or some other combination which results in an electoral victory.  I don't see it, but it "could" happen.
It could happen, but if you believe that FL will go to Bush, it's almost imperative that the Democrat take OH to make it a competitive EV race. If the PV stays close, that would mean that the Democrat manages to come away with a margin in OH that is skewed way off the 2000 results, i.e., wins a significant number of Ohio Bush voters from 2000. (Bush had a 1% margin over Gore+Nader in OH in 2000, so the Democrat needs to shift 0.5% of total voters AWAY from Bush PLUS win all the 2.5% of Nader voters in that state.

Other states present even more of a challenge to the Dems in a tight race, as the Bush margins over Gore+Nader in 2000 are even higher.

I believe Bush can lose only if he fails to gain an additional 1% of the total national vote, to bring his total at least to 48.8%. The Dems, however, cannot win unless they get at least 50.4%, a gain of a full 2% of the total nationwide vote.

Re: Florida

Florida is a card the Republicans NEED, so it's best to assume that considerable effort will be exerted by the GOP to hold down the fort there.

Re: The resurrection of the Democratic rank and file

2000 was a moribund voter turnout for the Dems and quite frankly the party got exactly what it deserved for taking its electoral fortunes for granted.

Unperturbed, the Democratic leadership had to take a second dose of ASSumption Pie in 2002, counting on a historical trend that the President's party loses seats in the midterm, rather than making their own fate.

I think the Boys in Blue got the message finally: that this is a contest, and you must play hard to have any chance of winning.

I think it will be a close contest again, and so do the Republican campaign managers.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1194 on: February 25, 2004, 07:54:32 pm »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

True
After all, the states that Dubya's economic [mis]managment have hit hardest have a tendency to be small...

Which states are those?  The states in worst shape economically are mostly big, and mostly Dem.  Such as CA, WA, MI, IL.. also a few medium ones like OR and MA.  Its interesting how poorly the West Coast has done for a long time now - even before Bush was president.  
The only Republican states in anything close to bad shape are the Carolinas and they're not in any doubt going for Bush.  WV and PA are doing fine, better than OH, which is not that bad.
But the overarching truth is the economy isn't that bad anyway.

All politics is local, but all economics is personal.

And across time and the set of countries, the worst thing you can have for regime instability is high growth with most of the people getting very little of the proceeds.

A sustained disparity between market performance and net job creation (new jobs less net growth in the workforce) is not only bad news for the incumbent administration...it's bad news for the country at large.



Even people who are employed have high credit debt and slow wage growth and higher state and local tax burdens.
Logged
WMS
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,902


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1195 on: February 25, 2004, 10:44:07 pm »

OK, I'll give my prediction.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1453

Not too much to add to what I said there...this is before the Nader and Moore announcements, but I'm going to wait to adjust for those. I believe I gave Alaska, Wyoming and Utah to GWB by 70%+ totals, which I can see happening. I was more confident about the Dems ability to hold what they got in 2000 because I don't think the Reps have done a very good job at trying to sway the Gore states. And, like him or hate him, GWB has turned out to be quite a polarizing president, which means that all you people predicting huge margins for either side are being awfully silly. Smiley

Logged
GOPman
Rookie
*
Posts: 35


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1196 on: February 25, 2004, 10:50:49 pm »

you didn't answer my first point, would you feel differently if the Republicans had lost the vote and the reason was the prevention of eligible voters from voting

Where are you getting your data for this accusation? And how are you showing that ALL those names were "similar" or the "same" as eligible voters? And how are you sure those voters who were turned away would have voted democrat and not republican? Please respond.
Logged
GOPman
Rookie
*
Posts: 35


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1197 on: February 25, 2004, 10:52:51 pm »

OK, I'll give my prediction.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1453

Not too much to add to what I said there...this is before the Nader and Moore announcements, but I'm going to wait to adjust for those. I believe I gave Alaska, Wyoming and Utah to GWB by 70%+ totals, which I can see happening. I was more confident about the Dems ability to hold what they got in 2000 because I don't think the Reps have done a very good job at trying to sway the Gore states. And, like him or hate him, GWB has turned out to be quite a polarizing president, which means that all you people predicting huge margins for either side are being awfully silly. Smiley



Hey WMS...has Moore stated he is running? I didn't hear that.
Logged
GOPman
Rookie
*
Posts: 35


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1198 on: February 25, 2004, 11:06:42 pm »

Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to. Smiley

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0 Smiley

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:

You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes. You have to look at the past presidential elections, and factor those together. West Va would be considered more democratic, however I believe that they will go Bush this time.

Florida on the other hand has ALWAYS been solid GOP. This notion about how it leans democratic must be coming from the close election of 2000. FL went GOP in 1992, and would have went GOP in 1996 had Perot not been running. Clinton did not win but by a few points. I think with all that in mind you have to consider 2000 as more a fluke for being so close. Since 2000, more people in FL are now registered GOP than Dem, the first time in the state! FL doesn't lean GOP, it will be reliably GOP in 2004.

If you look at the LA Gov race, you had basically identical candidates for Gov. It was an off year so the GOP expected to do worse than normal. Had you had a John "F" Kerry run in LA, GOP would have won big time. The Dems win in the south with a "moderate" dem, or at least in Edwards case, a "perceived" moderate.

First off: I am not looking at gubernatorial races as a driver for my model, I am not sure what you are getting at, and I am incorporating the last few presidential elections.

WEST VIRGINIA - Darn it. I just knew I shouldn't have gotten in the business of manual adjustments yesterday.

Yesterday, I took a suggestion to tweak my predictions for West Virginia...now I hear the exact opposite from you.

Ruling: I'm moving WV back to the original settings and keeping it there!

FLORIDA: This adjustment I will keep; I boosted Florida's "Conservative Quotient" (that has a nice ring to it) already, per the consensus suggestion yesterday.

All Bush has to do is keep his approval ratings from falling any lower and he'll win the Sunshine State. That's not going to be difficult now, is it?

LOUISIANA: I stand by this one. Bush clears Lousiana even if his nationwide ratings fall below 49%.

What I don't get is that in your first paragraph, you tell me not to concern myself with gubernatorial races, and here you create a fantasy football league situation in which a candidate from Massachusetts runs for Lousiana governor. Of course he'd be killed. He's not from Louisiana!

And Trent Lott would be killed if he ran for governor in Michigan; things that Mississippians are willing to accept or overlook, the Michiganders won't.

That's why I don't get into these fantasy football discussions, save to make light of them. Smiley

To answer your response about your fantasy leagues (your term, not mine), I think what everyone knows that my comment is the fact that the Kerry Democratic-types DO NOT work in the South. If a candidate with his mentality and beliefs tried to run in LA he would be soundly defeated. The dem and rep gov candidates were conservative enough last go around to not have the differences normally associated with a race...that is a fluke it doesn't normally happen. Anyway, had the other democrat running been the nominee, the GOP would have won LA too!

Regarding my comment about not concerning yourself with gov races, thats not what I said. I said you have to put them together collectively. You have to look at a presidential trend as carrying more weight in the overall outcome. You may have a state that votes dem or rep for the last 30 years in the presidential race, and votes the other party in the last election for a state race.

I hope I answered your question regarding your football fantasies of a Mass. senator running for LA gov, even though I never said it. You did.


Logged
Saratoga2DM
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1199 on: February 26, 2004, 01:58:01 am »

Hello All:

Well, its been a while since I last posted something so I took this opportunity to point out that Edwards has a very good shot at winning NY's primary.  This would be a huge win and it could give him the support he needs to win several other states.  

As for predicting the 2004 election, I think if Kerry gets the nod, this country will face another polarized electorate.  But if Edwards gets it, I think the Dems could win by at least 30 Electoral votes.  

See you all later.

 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 [48] 49 50 51 52 53 ... 99 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