2004 User Predictions - Discussion
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:16:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 User Predictions - Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 ... 99
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 865976 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1300 on: March 08, 2004, 01:11:51 AM »
« edited: March 08, 2004, 01:12:20 AM by Beet »

Actually its worse than I thought. Wyoming has about 150,000 persons per EV whereas Georgia has about 600,000 persons per EV.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1301 on: March 08, 2004, 10:50:01 AM »

Sounds fair and balanced to me. Large States are equals to Small states. The whole basis of the system of our Government.
Logged
California Dreamer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1302 on: March 08, 2004, 11:05:17 AM »

The EC is as fair and balanced as Fox news.

the EC system has ensured that America IS NOT one man one vote. it is clear that the bigger the state the less your vote counts, as a Californian my vote counts for a fraction of a Wyomingan, North Dakotan or Vermonter

and due to the politics of the day, the Republicans are more popular in the smaller states (so therefore they couldnt be more pleased by this system)

If we changed to a popular vote, or changed so that each state got ECs equivelent to the number of congressional disticts (but not add two for the senators) then it would be 'fair and balanced'
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1303 on: March 08, 2004, 11:10:19 AM »

We've discussed this already on another board. Going to a direct popular vote would be an absolute disaster, because in that case the large cities would pick the president. Look at how much Gore won just from big metropolitan areas alone. We may as well not even have a voting system if it went to direct popular vote. I know I'd quit voting.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1304 on: March 08, 2004, 11:20:36 AM »

My current prediction:



A bit heretical I suppose... but I like thinking for myself...
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1305 on: March 08, 2004, 11:23:00 AM »

Why are you afraid of democracy, statesrights?  I'm not sure I'd be for a popular vote for president, but I don't know why you fear such a vote.  First of all in over 200 years, there have been only 2 elections where the results were different.  Secondly, if the "big cities" go overwhelmingly for one candidate, I would think that would matter.  Big cities do not vote as a block, anymore than any other group does.  It just happens that the democrats currently appeal to the cities (often due to high concentrations of blacks and other minorities).  I think your fears may reveal your political affiliation more than a valid concern that the results would be less "valid".
Logged
California Dreamer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1306 on: March 08, 2004, 11:26:35 AM »
« Edited: March 08, 2004, 11:31:38 AM by California Dreamer »

do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party


The fact is the current system is 'rigged' in favor of rural and smaller states. Although the framers of the constitution wanted some kind of system to ensure larger states dont dominate smaller states, they couldnt envision an America with the number of smaller states we have and the size disparirty we have today. The bottom line is that the system that was built to ensure the bigger states dont dominate the smaller states has instead created a situtation where the smaller states dominate the bigger ones.

so for 2004, just like 2000, it means the Dems have to work that much harder to get the win.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1307 on: March 08, 2004, 11:48:34 AM »

It is valuable and appropriate that the votes of rural people and people from smaller communities count for more than voters in huge cities.  Its one of the checks and balances - it prevents democracy, which the Founders quite sensibly saw as a bad thing: the tyranny of the majority.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1308 on: March 08, 2004, 11:52:25 AM »

Vorlon -

Your rationale makes a lot of sense, especially regarding WA and OR.  I've always written them off based on little more than 2000 and the fact that their economies are perpetual underperformers.  But I guess they're used to it - their unemployment rate has been much higher than the national average for I believe decades.

Anyway, I see it as quite possiblie Bush wins everything you see  him winning plus FL, OH, WV, and PA.  
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1309 on: March 08, 2004, 12:02:55 PM »

I find it disturbing to read Republicans on this board try to explain away the national debt of the USA, with phrases such as 'it's not a problem' and even more that the Clinton recovery was 'too much too fast.' Get realistic. The growth in jobs in February was so low it couldn't keep up with the growth in the working population, never mind alieviating the existing unemployed. Bush has lost more jobs than Herbert Hoover, and as one economist put it quite simply; 'Yuck' The stockmarket is lumbering along and the value of the Dollar has fallen so much that in the long trend, soon the Euro will be worth more than the Dollar! Yes the economy is better than it was a year ago, but it is far far worse than it was on the day Clinton left office. And all the Republicans can shout about is Clinton's morality! It would almost be excusable if this was part of a worldwide economic downturn, but no. The economy of Japan is gathering speed, as is that of China. The UK's economy is now into its 11th year of sustained growth, it's unemployment rate is the lowest for almost 30 years and we can still afford to pump billions into education and healthcare. Ross Perot where are you now!

I'd just like to pick out the fact you said that soon the Euro will be worth more than the dollar, it ALREADY IS.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1310 on: March 08, 2004, 12:12:41 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.
Logged
John
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,088


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1311 on: March 08, 2004, 12:26:14 PM »

My current prediction:



A bit heretical I suppose... but I like thinking for myself...

I Think That Map is Great
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1312 on: March 08, 2004, 12:48:02 PM »

do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1313 on: March 08, 2004, 01:06:02 PM »
« Edited: March 08, 2004, 01:06:22 PM by Gustaf »

do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom

'Freedom is slavery'... Tongue Wink

The EC only makes sense if one supposes that Americans are Texans, Montanians, North Dakotians, South Dakotians, New Mexicans, etc rather than Americans. Otherwise, it's just unfair and stupid.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1314 on: March 08, 2004, 01:07:55 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.

I agree weith you that there is ALWAYS a local factor in each race.  West Virginia in 2000 is the easy example where a local issue trumps the national trend.

I disagree with you that it happens a lot, and to a great degree.  If Kerry or Bush were to get up say 10 points in this race, you would find that in the majority of states they would do 8-12 points better than their party did in 2000.

Granted, there are also regional factors - I suspect that Kerry will do better in the NorthEast than Gore did by  a few points, and worse than Gore in the South by a few points...

I would compare the effects in any individual state to a guy in a rowboat battling the tide... You can make a small difference at the state level, but if the tide is not going you way, usually it will not matter...

Actually, a national swing of 10% would HAVE to correspond to a swing of 8-12% in the majority of states, since the average would have to be 10%...if you see what I mean, lol. Wink
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1315 on: March 08, 2004, 01:13:28 PM »

Bush wins 52% to Kerrys 48%. Etch it. People don't forget 9/11 or terrorism. Dont depend on the polls.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1316 on: March 08, 2004, 01:15:01 PM »

Bush wins 52% to Kerrys 48%. Etch it. People don't forget 9/11 or terrorism. Dont depend on the polls.

I don't know who you're talking to...the majority of voters care more about domestic issues than terrorism.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1317 on: March 08, 2004, 01:17:00 PM »

do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom

'Freedom is slavery'... Tongue Wink

The EC only makes sense if one supposes that Americans are Texans, Montanians, North Dakotians, South Dakotians, New Mexicans, etc rather than Americans. Otherwise, it's just unfair and stupid.

Actually Texas is underrepresented in the ec.  Also, I don't think there should be an 'i' in North or South Dakotans or Montanans.  
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1318 on: March 08, 2004, 01:19:21 PM »

do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom

'Freedom is slavery'... Tongue Wink

The EC only makes sense if one supposes that Americans are Texans, Montanians, North Dakotians, South Dakotians, New Mexicans, etc rather than Americans. Otherwise, it's just unfair and stupid.

Actually Texas is underrepresented in the ec.  Also, I don't think there should be an 'i' in North or South Dakotans or Montanans.  

I wasn't saying that Texas was overrepresented, did I? Wink

And I honestly have no idea how to spell North Dakotans correctly, I just went with my gut feeling...
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1319 on: March 08, 2004, 01:19:51 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.

I agree weith you that there is ALWAYS a local factor in each race.  West Virginia in 2000 is the easy example where a local issue trumps the national trend.

I disagree with you that it happens a lot, and to a great degree.  If Kerry or Bush were to get up say 10 points in this race, you would find that in the majority of states they would do 8-12 points better than their party did in 2000.

Granted, there are also regional factors - I suspect that Kerry will do better in the NorthEast than Gore did by  a few points, and worse than Gore in the South by a few points...

I would compare the effects in any individual state to a guy in a rowboat battling the tide... You can make a small difference at the state level, but if the tide is not going you way, usually it will not matter...

Actually, a national swing of 10% would HAVE to correspond to a swing of 8-12% in the majority of states, since the average would have to be 10%...if you see what I mean, lol. Wink

I guess my point is that things do tend to move on a national basis.  

It is very hard to imagine a scenario where Bush GAINED 10 points in Michigan and LOST 10 points in Pennsylvania.  

The national trend is certainly not perfect - you could gain 10 in Georgia and only gain 7 in Louisiania, but it is rare for states to go in the opposite direction - the direction is almost always the same, sometimes the pace is just a little different...

The only real exception is when you have a small state, with a big issue - IE West Virginai and coal in 2000, and perhaps Nevada and the nuclear waste depository in 2004...?

Yeah, I know, and I agree with you.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1320 on: March 08, 2004, 01:22:28 PM »

As long as the news reporters dont say "Florida goes to Kerry (or vice versa)" before ALL the polls have closed! Geesh reporters, Florida is in two time zones.

Reporters are scoundrels anyhow.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1321 on: March 08, 2004, 01:29:48 PM »

As long as the news reporters dont say "Florida goes to Kerry (or vice versa)" before ALL the polls have closed! Geesh reporters, Florida is in two time zones.

Reporters are scoundrels anyhow.
I have no problem with the networks making predictions before polls close.  People have to care enough to vote anyway, in my opinion.  Jeez, if the only criteria were whether you thought your vote would ACTUALLY impact the election, turnout would be EVEN lower than it is.  

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I don't think Dubya lost ONE vote due to the early projection for Gore; biggest nonissue ever.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1322 on: March 08, 2004, 09:24:42 PM »



I've said it before and I'll say it again; I don't think Dubya lost ONE vote due to the early projection for Gore; biggest nonissue ever.

Well your 'thought' contradicts hundreds of eye-wittness acounts including one from my cousin.  Are you calling my cousin a liar?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1323 on: March 08, 2004, 09:29:58 PM »
« Edited: March 08, 2004, 09:30:22 PM by StatesRights »

What affect do you think Elian Gonzalez had on Gores election loss in Florida?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1324 on: March 08, 2004, 09:32:17 PM »
« Edited: March 08, 2004, 09:33:27 PM by supersoulty »

What affect do you think Elian Gonzalez had on Gores election loss in Florida?

I'd say that it cost him maybe 10% of the cuban vote.  It didn't have a huge effect over all, because most Cubans would have voted Bush anyway, but it did cost him the state and the election.

Thank You Elian.  Your sacrafice was not in vain and someday, we will free your people.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 58 ... 99  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 11 queries.