Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 12, 2019, 06:53:43 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 User Predictions - Discussion (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 820832 times)
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2004, 07:57:07 pm »
« edited: January 19, 2004, 07:57:26 pm by NHPolitico »


CA probably will go Dem but it will be close.

That is enough to just crap all over the Dems chances.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2004, 07:58:28 pm »

My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because Tongue

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



Edwards doesn't help fill the gravitas hole for Dean.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2004, 08:01:32 pm »

My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because Tongue

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



You also give the Dems other tossups: NH, Maine and Delaware. Wait a minute! DELAWARE? Smiley

Anyway, you marked those as tossups, so it's a 32-20 to the Dems.

Of course, Delaware. Congressman Mike Castle will deliver the goods. He's as money as Tom Brady, baby!

: )
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2004, 10:10:38 pm »

Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.

For our grandkids to look at?
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2004, 10:11:09 pm »
« Edited: January 19, 2004, 10:13:28 pm by NHPolitico »

Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.

Congrats on Edwards' strong finish, btw!
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2004, 10:12:32 pm »

Kerry would win california and Pennsylvania, but lose Michigan and wisconsin.  He might take maine also.

I think Kerry actually might be a weaker candidate than Dean.

That is interesting about PA.  Will the Heinz connection help him there?  His stepson does a freakin' great Schwarzenegger impression for an amateur, by the way.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2004, 10:40:28 pm »

As an Iowan to a New Hampsh**te, I pass on the mantle of the "local" Smiley

Have 'fun'

I met Bill Bradley at work in 2000. Pretty neat.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2004, 06:37:25 am »

Ah, but did Carol Moseley-Braun go to your school?

Tongue

New Hampshire hasn't seen much of the black candidates, actually.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2004, 07:12:04 am »

Michigan Voters give the President a 63% Approval rating and 77% Approve Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm (+/- 5% according to a Detroit News 1/19/2004 poll).
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #59 on: January 20, 2004, 10:23:46 am »

I just heard ESPN Radio/ESPN-TV's PTI host Tony Kornheiser say when a candidate has a speech like Dean's it's time for every responsible adult to say, "check please." He said (jokingly), maybe Dean said "How-weeeee" at the end of his geography lesson. Regardless, he thought it was off the deep end.

Don Imus made great fun of it, too.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2004, 11:59:42 am »

From Roll Call via Drudge...

"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, "It's called the theory of political socialization. Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group. Why? Because the two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. And who are the most Republican? People in their 40s, 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 fairly 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 in anchored in the religious right. In fact, Democratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis and Stan Greenberg 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."

Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2004, 02:31:46 pm »


I have to see this speech I keep hearing so much about! Was it really that bad? What did Dean do exactly?

This link should work...

http://66.230.216.3/011904/caucus_dean_011904_300.rm

Here's a report:

The speech didn't start badly. Although Dean appeared oddly exuberant after what was an extraordinarily disappointing finish, that might easily be attributed to a politician's desire to put a publicly positive face on bad news. "You know something?" Dean asked his fans. "If you had told us one year ago that we were going to come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that."

That was a perfectly reasonable gloss for a candidate to put on unfavorable election results. But Dean quickly took on a red-faced, shouting, teeth-baring, air-punching demeanor unlike any of his performances during the campaign.

"Not only are we going to New Hampshire," he said, his voice rising. "We're going to South Carolina and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House."

Then he let out a strange, extended, yelp that seemed to come from deep within him: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Dean resumed his roll of states. "We will not give up! We will not give up in New Hampshire! We will not give up in South Carolina! We will not give up in Arizona or New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan! We will not quit now or ever! We'll earn our country back for ordinary Americans!"

As the crowd began to applaud, Dean recited still more states. "And we're going to win in Massachusetts! And North Carolina! And Missouri! And Arkansas! And Connecticut! And New York! And Ohio!" -- the home states of Dean's rivals for the Democratic nomination.

Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2004, 05:12:54 pm »

Edwards is the only Democrat running a positive campaign, and it is only now starting to pay off.

JE2K4

With the success Bush had, I'm surprised more Dems didn't choose that path. Edwards was able to do it because everyone else wasn't.  They could have put him away by now.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #63 on: January 21, 2004, 06:48:48 am »

drove Gov now President Bush around IA for a day during 2000 campaign.

Oh and met Bush 41 when he was VP and came to my high school.


As an Iowan to a New Hampsh**te, I pass on the mantle of the "local" Smiley

Have 'fun'

I met Bill Bradley at work in 2000. Pretty neat.

That's cool.  I worked on John Sununu's campaign and he called me personally to thank me after he won.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #64 on: January 21, 2004, 09:01:30 am »

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.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #65 on: January 21, 2004, 12:12:25 pm »

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.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #66 on: January 27, 2004, 08:15:34 pm »

plus fox always has the results first! Smiley

but I channel hop to the most interesting storylines.

I flip away when they cut to the candidate HQs. Those are the dumbest segments.  Nothing of value is ever learned.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #67 on: January 30, 2004, 07:05:26 am »

McAuliffe has lost his mind, I guess.  Did he really think this statement was helpful in any way to Dems in the state?

McAuliffe statement defended by NH Democrats
Union Leader
1/30/04

Top state Democrats yesterday defended the candid assessment of their party’s national chairman that New Hampshire should vote Democratic in November if it wants to retain its first-in-the-nation Presidential primary.

Key Republicans and one former state Democratic chairman, however, said the primary’s future should not be linked to general election results.

Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and state party chair Kathy Sullivan said Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe was trying to rally New Hampshire faithful when he said the future of the primary depends on it becoming a “blue state.”

Secretary of State William Gardner said he wished McAuliffe had not said that, but said he was saying what a party chairman should say.

Republican National Committeeman Tom Rath said McAuliffe set an unfair “litmus test” and Sen. John Sununu called it “short-sighted.”

In a Wednesday interview, McAuliffe voiced personal support for keeping New Hampshire’s primary and Iowa’s caucus the nation’s first tests of candidate strength. But he estimated that 90 percent of the Democratic National Committee’s members wants to eliminate their leadoff positions. Iowa holds the nation’s first caucus eight days before New Hampshire’s primary.

McAuliffe said New Hampshire’s record voter turnout was “first and foremost” helpful for the state. But he said that to change minds on the DNC, “The second part of it is even more critical. New Hampshire needs to make itself a blue state in November 2004.” That means the state needs to give its four electoral votes to the Democratic nominee, not President George W. Bush.

The state supported Bush over Al Gore by a mere 7,000 votes in 2000. It supported Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992, but had backed Republicans in the six elections before that.

Among the anti-New Hampshire forces are Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who say their states more accurately reflect the nation’s diversity. The New York Times has editorialized in favor of regional primaries, insisting New Hampshire has lost its retail politics flavor.

McAuliffe, in a deal with Michigan Democrats, will appoint a commission to recommend in early 2006 how the party should handle its 2008 convention delegate selection process. It will then be taken up by the DNC’s Rules and By-Laws Committee.

If the DNC eventually rules against New Hampshire, a state law will keep the state first by seven days. But the DNC could insist that candidates not campaign here in 2008 and could block from the 2008 convention any New Hampshire delegates selected in a non-sanctioned event.

Rath said, “There can never be a guarantee on the way this state will vote. This was an unfortunate way to couch this thing. To say this is a litmus test of whether we get to keep the Democratic primary is not appropriate.”

Sununu called it “the wrong standard” and cited Clinton and Jimmy Carter’s successes as “cases where a Democrat could argue it was very helpful to their party.”

Republican Executive Councilor Ruth-Griffin has worked to preserve the state’s GOP primary, and winning the electoral votes “has never been a prerequisite.”

Former state Democratic chairman and DNC member Joe Keefe said becoming a blue state would help, but should not be “a necessary condition because only one party wins the election. Whether it turns out to be a red or blue state is largely besides the point.”

The current DNC rule allows New Hampshire to hold its primary a week before any other state. The Republican rule contains no such explicit exemption, but state Republicans have preserved the leadoff status, thanks in part to Bush’s support.

Gardner cited the record Democratic primary turnout of 219,787 and estimated that 70 to 80 percent of the state’s registered Democrats voted. “No other state can lay claim to anything like that percentage,” he said. “No other state will be remotely close to that.”

Gardner said McAuliffe’s comments are “the type of thing a chairman of a party says. The truth is, neither party can guarantee that.”

Shaheen said she is confident that if John Kerry wins the Presidency, he will use his clout to protect New Hampshire and Iowa.

“The record number of Democrats and independents we saw here certainly think New Hampshire should be a blue state, and there is frustration about the direction in which George Bush is leading this country,” Shaheen said.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #68 on: February 01, 2004, 05:53:36 pm »

Carter-Mondale years were okay up until 1978 when gas went, and Iran hostage. We needed a great leader, and Reagan was just that.

People liked to say Carter made a better preacher than a president.  That's how people viewed him. They thought he tried hard, but just wasn't up to the task.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #69 on: February 10, 2004, 10:06:00 pm »



Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.

They get their conspiracy theories from Madeleine Albright.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #70 on: February 16, 2004, 05:18:41 pm »

I've noticed that since the start of 'Kerrymania' the prediction page has seen more confident Democratic wins, and even the Republican wins have been scaled down. I hope I don't have to eat my hat, but those 'Bush wins everything but Vermont' predictions from before the new year seem pretty ridiculous now! My own predictions are biased i'll admit. Oh and hows about a 'final prediction' topic come November where the most accurate gets a free pat on the back! Come to mention it, did anyone here predict 2000 pretty much spot on? Right down to EV's? Raise your hands now. It would be nice to hear from you!

It would be silly to think that Kerry isn't as much of a loser as Dean would have been. I trimmed 3 points off Bush's popular vote total and gave back WA, WI, MI, and ME.  Boo for Kerry...
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #71 on: February 17, 2004, 10:23:41 am »

I've looked into the 2000 result in WV and have found something very interesting:

Although turnout amoung registered voters rose slightly, the turnout in the heavily Democrat south fell sharply.

The main thing in these Southern states like WV is to look at the future of these states. The old Dems are passing on and being replaced by solidly Republican youth. 37% of 18-29 year-olds in WV went for Gore compared to 46% for their grandparents.  Each day, the state is less hospitable to Dem nominees.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #72 on: February 17, 2004, 10:29:26 am »

Had Dean been the nominee… he would have had a similar problem to that which McGovern had he would have had a large part of the Party opposed to his candidacy even when he became the Democrat nominee…I would say that in terms of the Popular vote Dean could have cleared the 40% mark however much beyond that would have been unlikely, so around 42-43% Dean…his performance is only better than Mondale’s in 1984 because of the much more polarised political environment and the fact that the Democrats are now completely locked out of Government for the first time since the 1950’s…

With Kerry you have a good campaigner who has proven himself in his 1996 campaign (where he defeated the “folksy” and “down to earth” governor weld) and in this primary season to be very tenacious and hard working. He has the full backing of the Democratic Party and has gained high voter turnouts across the country which would seem to bode well for him. So what could happen in the “swing states” with Kerry…

Washington: The large Nader vote largely accounts for the closeness of the race here in 2000, this time around a high turn out in Seattle and the other metropolitan coastal towns will mean that this state will be solidly for Kerry.

Oregon: Again the Green vote will be for Kerry here and it should be less close than in 2000 however Bush could pull off an upset though I doubt it.

New Mexico: More marginal than Florida in 2000 and Bush’s attempts to woo Hispanic voters might pay off here…however Gov Richardson could also boost the Dem’s chances… but defiantly a very close contest and with Bush probably having the edge this time around…

Nevada; Last time Bush won by about 4%... traditionally a socially conservative state however the growing Democrat leaning population in Vegas as well as the Yucca Mountain issue will make the race close as recent polls have suggested…But as with NM Bush has the edge…

Missouri: Closes yet not too close a win for Bush in 2000… 50.4% to Gore’s 47.1% while Nader garnered 1.6%... the male catholic vote (which Bush won last time) I would argue will go for Kerry this time and this could deliver Missouri , the successes of Gov  Holden may also be a boost for Kerry, but then again it could simply act as a boost for any incumbent to helping both Bush and Holden…it really depends on who voters here attribute the economic recovery in the state to… I get a sense that Holden will get he credit…but then again I’m biased…

Iowa: A painfully close race here in 2000…however Nader got 2.2% and you can add about 2/3rds of that to the Dem total so a Kerry edge in Iowa…However a large number of GOP congressmen and rural support for Bush will make the race competitive…

Minnesota: A very strong Green vote here last time 5.2% while Gore beat Bush by 2 points… on the basis of that I would say a solid Dem edge in a close race…however the GOP gains in the state in 2002 could help Bush however an evenly divided congressional delegation and the strong Green vote from 2000 (as well as the strong independent showing in the race for Governor) which will probably go to the Democrats should mean that Kerry holds his edge here…but as with Iowa a close contest but a stronger Democratic edge than in Iowa…

Wisconsin: As with the other Midwestern states in 2000 a very close race characterised by a strong Green vote…Unlike Minnisota or Iowa the Dems here are very strong, dominating the Congressional delegation and holding both the senate seats as well as the Governors mansion…Despite the closeness of the 2000 race WI will be more solidly Dem this time around I would argue that the formally green vote along with those voters who voted for Bush as a moderate candidate in 2000 will give Kerry a 4-6% win here…however it will remain a highly competitive race…

Michigan: A solidly Dem state in 2000 an evenly divided congressional delegation with the republicans holding the edge while both Senators are Dems as is the governor… with some bluecollar dissatisfaction with Bush as well as the green voters from 2000 turning to the Dems making Michigan highly likely to remain comfortably Democratic in 2004…

Ohio: Much closer in 2000 than was expected considering how little attention was given it by the Gore campaign…The steel tariffs issue will help then Dems here and winning over male bluecollar voters will also be important for any Dem candidate who hopes to win the state and Kerry’s vet record should help with this however his social liberalism will be a big disadvantage here in a fairly socially conservative state however I would imagine that it will be close and unlike in 2000 will be one of the most hotly contested states in November…

West Virginia: Many have said that it was a surprise that this state was a surprise in 2000… I don’t get that…it’s a socially conservative state with a hankering for economic populism and pork barrel populism, witness Robert Byrd … in 2004 the Democrats will have the disadvantage of a socially liberal candidate and an outgoing governor overshadowed by scandal however the steel tariff issue will mean that this state is still very much in contention and added to this Edward’s neo-populism and guarded support for protectionism might play extremely well with Wes Virginian voters…

Pennsylvania: A surprisingly solid win for Gore in 2000 by 4% over Bush while Nader won 2%... Rendell’s election in 2002 is another boost for the Democrats while the repeal of the steel tariffs will assist in boosting the Democratic vote in the west of the state and the Pittsburgh area, while the same issues that effected the philly mayoral race will help GOTV in the east of the state as will Rendell who is a proven and effective campaigner…Bush’s only hope for a win in PA will be fore low turnouts in the west and east and a very high turnout in the “Z” (or “T” if you like) with Dean as the nominee he had a very good shot at having a low Dem vote in the west of the state and a strong socially conservative vote in the “Z” however while the Socially Conservative vote will still turnout for Bush it will probably be heavily outweighed by the Democratic vote in the west and east of the state…an outside shot for Bush but in my view unlike unless your looking at a very solid almost landslide Bush win…

Florida: Jeb’s solid win in 2000 and the increase in Republican voter registration would suggest that Florida will very probably go to Bush in 2004…a modest increase in the Jewish vote as well as energised republican voters should give the President a solid win here…however where the conservative vote to show a low turnout for Bush (very unlikely) Kerry might be in with a chance so long as the liberal voters in the south as well as the black population turn out in strong numbers… a possibility but very unlikely…

New Hampshire: Nader voters would have given the state to Gore in 2000 and Kerry’s New England roots should help…the very high turnout for the Democratic primary this year would suggest a highly energised Democratic vote and an appeal to independents in the state…a good chance that Kerry could pick up the state this November…However if Bush can appeal to the libertarian inclinations of NH voters (unlikely if you look at his record) particularly in the north of the state he might hold the state however I think that it would be a good bet to say that Kerry will pick the state up…but a highly competitive state with many factors favouring Kerry over Bush…

That’s all Ive got time for at moment… Any thoughts?              


I don't know that I would characterize Weld's political style as “folksy” and “down to earth”.  Successful Republicans in the Bay State come off as competent and sympathetic and harmless to rich people (who want to vote GOP, but are guilty about it or fear social extremism and vote Dem).
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #73 on: February 17, 2004, 04:19:22 pm »


Politics needs its version of the Sports Illustrated jinx.
Logged
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,303


« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2004, 12:41:54 pm »

This poll is great news for Bush. He's basicly got his red states in the bag and is neck and neck overall in Gore states. Bush's overall deficit in Gore states was much worse than a point. In fact Gore won the presidency of Gore-merica, 53.73% vs. 41.79%, by nearly 12 points.  If this poll were to hold, Bush would be outperforming by 11 points. That would leave Kerry with only California, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and District of Columbia because Bush would have made up his deficit in the other Gore states. Again, it's a match-up poll and so of dubious usefulness, but still, it's interesting, I think.  It also looks like Bush's best bet is to basicly say that the world is too dangerous to elect Kerry.



Bush Leads in Red States, Kerry Ahead in Blue States Voters Hardened on the Economy, War,  Gays Marriage

A new poll conducted by Zogby International for The O'Leary Report and Southern Methodist University's John Tower Center from February 12-15, 2004 of 1,209 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points found that if the election for president were held today, Democrat John Kerry would edge George W. Bush 46% to 45% in the "blue states" -- or states won by Al Gore in the 2000 election.  In the "red states,"-- or states won by George W. Bush in 2000, however, Bush wins handily by a 51% to 39% margin.

In terms of right direction/wrong direction, blue state voters felt the country was headed in the wrong direction by a 47% to 45% margin while red state voters felt the country was headed in the right direction by a 50% to 40% margin, according to an additional Zogby International/O' Leary Report/John Tower Center survey of Red States/Blue States conducted from February 12-15, 2004 of 532 likely Blue State voters and 543 likely Red State voters with a margin of error of + 4.3 percentage points found that.

Forty-seven percent of blue state voters rated Bush's job performance as good or excellent while 51% said the president's job performance was only fair or poor.  Fifty-five percent of red states, however, rated the president's performance as good or excellent while 45% had a fair or poor opinion of the President's job performance.

On the issue of a strong economy and low unemployment versus job creation, Blue State voters who feel a strong economy is a bigger priority than job creation by a 50% to 40% margin while Red State voters also agreed by a 48% to 40% margin a 49% to 40% margin.

A majority of voters in the survey also reject the filibuster strategy employed by Senate Democrats against some of President Bush's judicial nominees.  This is consistent with polling results under President Clinton when voters rejected Republican efforts to block judicial nominees. Fifty-three percent of Blue State and 59% of Red State voters felt the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees was wrong while 35% of Blue State and 32% of Red State voters feel a minority of Senators are right to use whatever means to necessary to block the nominees.

While the issue of gay marriages dominates the news in San Francisco and Boston, a majority of Americans remain opposed to the idea. Fifty-two percent of Red State voters and 50% of Blue State voters support such a constitutional amendment while 43% of Red State voters and 44% of Blue State voters disagree.

Voters gave Bush a decided edge when asked who would do a better job of dealing with Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gaddafi, North Korea and Iran.  Bush was the clear choice among Red State voters (53%) and Blue State votes (47%).  Only 31% of Red State voters and 35% of Blue State voters felt Kerry would do a better job in dealing with rogue states and leaders.

Pollster John Zogby will be presenting these poll results at a meeting of the Wednesday Morning Club at the Beverly Hills Hotel at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18, 2004.  There will be a press availability at 1:45 p.m. for Los Angeles press.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print 
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