2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Gustaf]

The States that Bush won in 2000 have picked up 7 electoral votes, mainly due to an increase in population in the South and the Sunbelt. This trend does not seem to be turning around anytime soon.

If you guys abandon those areas, you will be consigning yourself to permanent minority status.

Not that I would care.

Clinton found a way to stay competitive in those areas. I would suggest that if the Dems have any hope of regaining the White House, they should look to the DLC and not to the turncoat Gore (who could not even win his own State!) and his new pal Dean.

You have a point, but let's remember that a Democrat win is still within reach. Much of Bush's pickup came in states that could easily go Dem, like Florida, Nevada and Arizona. So there is no need to get desperate just yet. As I said, for now, winning the steel states + Florida should be the main focus for the Dem campaign. If Florida is out of reach, as I suspect it might be, then they will have to rethink and go for the mid-west and south-west instead (NM, NV, WI, MN, etc).

[Gustaf]

Bush Might win the Same States he won in 2000 & Pick Up Three or More States like Iowa, MINN, Wiscons, That's the best i could spelled

You're longing to give it up aren't you? Come on, start to contribute instead of goofing around.

[Gustaf]

Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.

He is fooling around. I am sure of it now. He mixes comprehendible statements with complete rubbish. Also, if he just had bad grammar, he could see how we spell certain words and do the same. And he seems to be able to read our posts, so he should be able to do that. For a short while I was beginning to suspect that the guy honestly couldn't spell, but now I think he is just messing with us.

[Gustaf]

I think that this discussion centers too much around the assumption that the 2004 election will be reasonably similar to the 2000 election, with the 2000 election therefore serving as the baseline for predictions about 2004.

It may turn out that way, but I don't think so.

Think about the differences between the 1968 and 1972 elections.  In 1968, Republican Nixon barely beat traditional Democrat Humphrey, who was serving as VP to then-Pres. Lyndon Johnson.  The Democrats had been in power 8 years, and the economy was doing well, but the country was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, among other things.

There was also a third party candidacy that year, with George Wallace winning several southern states with his quasi-segregationist message.  It is questionable who would have won those states in the absence of the Wallace candidacy, since the south then was still very reluctant to vote Republican, and in some states, Nixon came in third, behind Wallace and Humphrey.

Come 1972, the situation was radically different.  The economy was doing well, having gone through a recession in the 1969-71 period.  The Vietnam War was all but over for the United States, although tragically this was not the case for the Vietnamese.  In his re-election bid, Nixon faced an opponent at the far left of the Democratic Party, rather than a traditional Democrat as in 1968.

In short, the political landscape had radically changed, and it would have been foolish to base 1972 calculations on the 1968 political landscape.  Nixon went on to comfortably win states that he couldn't have dreamed of carrying in 1968.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?  I'd say a lot fewer than would have trusted it to Al Gore in 2000.

I don't think Bush will win on the scale that Nixon did in 1972, and it's probably better if he didn't (look what happened to Nixon!) but I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?

[Gustaf]

Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.

You're probably right. I thought Missouri was in the south, but I'm a foreigner....

Still, if you pick up Ohio, and loses NM, you will still lose the election. If you lose OR, IA, WI and MN you could lose the whole thing if you don't have anything to make it up with.

[Gustaf]

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?

No, I think that states with a higher percentage voting Democratic, or Republican, will remain largely the same as 2000.  I don't think Massachusetts is suddenly going to turn strongly Republican, or Texas is going to turn Democratic.

But I do think the dynamics are very different this time than in 2000, and that Bush will win much more comfortably than he did last time.  I don't for example believe that Florida will be the ultimate swing state; I think it will be safely Republican this time.  But we'll see.  I never make bold predictions this far out, especially when we don't know the Democratic nominee.  Primaries can bring a lot of surprises.

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

[Gustaf]

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

I think it's more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will be toss-ups than Florida.  I think that Bush will hold onto all the states he won in 2000, with a bigger margin of victory, and pick up some states that Gore carried that year.  The only question is how many.

The first "tier" of states that he could pick up are states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico, all of which he lost narrowly to Gore.  The next tier would be states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the third tier would be states like Illinois, New Jersey and California.

I don't know how far he'll go, but I don't think we'll be quibbling in 2004 over the same states that we quibbled over in 2000.

The election is ten months away and that's a long time, so I have to qualify my predictions.  I also have to say that they are based on the assumption that Dean will get the Democratic nomination.  It would be significantly different with Clark, Gephardt or Lieberman.

But if Dean is nominated, it's hard to imagine him picking up any state that Bush won in 2000.  Dean is the candidate for a nasty vocal minority.  They may be loud and obnoxious, but they can't carry a general election, and they'll drive away moderate voters in droves.  That is my prediction, so I would say forget Florida, Nevada and West Virginia too.  Worry about Dean winning Michigan, Pennsyvania, California and New Jersey.

Again, you're assuming a clear Bush win. If that happens, obviously the Dems will not pick up much, and likely lose a lot instead. But I am assuming a close race, simply b/c if it isn't Bush will just win and there is less fun!

[Gustaf]

It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.

The "we can win over their voters, but they cannot win over ours" seems a little biased, I must say.

[Gustaf]

I have finally posted my map.  Thanks for making it easier, Dave.  

Well, at least you have distributed the tossups more or less equally...

[Gustaf]

Even without Florida, just a turnover in Nevada (the demographic there is rapidly changing) and New Hampshire (Dean's neighboring state) would bring us to an electoral tie.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.

What's the last part supposed to mean? That they are stupid and vote "wrongly" or what?

[Gustaf]

It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.

Eh...what is that last part supposed to mean? Bush is a conservative who would lose in a landslide if it wasn't for the annoying fact there are so many conservative voters! In fact, any candidate would lose in a landslide if they didn't have voters who shared their opinion!

[Gustaf]

The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

"of the mainstream candidates" Who are excluded, all actual left-wingers, or what?

[Gustaf]

The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

[Gustaf]

The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

[Gustaf]

The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?

My point. Let's take an example. I don't remember the American tax level, so I'll use other countries. In the UK, the overall taxation is 37% of GDP. In Sweden it is 53% of GDP. If a British party advocated higher taxes and a Swedish party advocated lower taxes, the Swedish party might be viewed as further to the right. However, if the Swedish party wants to cut taxes to, say 50% of GDP, and the British party wants to raise them to 40% of GDP, the Swedish party is still favouring a more leftist society. All I was saying is that this should be kept in mind when these comparisons are made. Look at where you're headed, not just the direction.  

[Gustaf]

Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.

Well, but then they would cease to be tossups, wouldn't they?

[Gustaf]

Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.

Well, but then they would cease to be tossups, wouldn't they?

No, tossups in my mind just mean states that could go either way. If the election is close, then they probably go both ways. If the election is a landslide, they probably all fall in one direction toward the winner.

A tossup to me is a 50-50 state, 50-50 states should statistically be distributed equally. If there is a landslide driving them towards one side, they cease to be tossups, perhaps not in time for us to realise that or change our predictions, but cease to be tossups all the same.

[Gustaf]

MN will be close, like it usually is, although I think it leans Democrat as there isn't going to be a strong Greenie standing this year.
The GOP can only win if turnout is low in strongly Democrat areas.
I actually think that the GOP have a better chance at winning in Wisconsin than MN.

So do I.

[Gustaf]

Besides politics I always have the "4 year test" can I stand to have this person speak to me for 4 years from the Oval office.  Gore failed that test with me.  

By far not the only factor for me, but sit back , close your eyes and visualize each candidate addressingthe nation and see if they fit the job.

That's why I'm against Bush...

[Gustaf]

But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...

[Gustaf]

Reread your own sentence, to get what i am saying.




The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry

Look who's talking! If there is anyone on this forum (except for trolls of course) who does that it's you! ()No offense, JR)

[Gustaf]

I just added my prediction map!

This is Dean scenario with successful campaign and situation where Bush has troubles with economy and Iraq. Dean would get most of Nader's votes = pretty solid victory in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Maine and lean victory in New Hampshire and New Mexico. Result in Ohio and West Virginia would be very tight. In Iowa and Nevada Dean's victory would be slightly bigger. Connecticut could be tighter than in 2000, because there’s no Lieberman's effect.

There is several stupid mistake in spelling in my comment like conneticut and new hapshire. And I can’t fix it, cos I have forgot my password. DAMN!

It sounds like you're being quite optimstic...I will have a look at it and tell you what I think.

[Gustaf]

I have also added Dean scenario of situation where he has too liberal and poor campaign and Bush has good economy and no problem with Iraq.

Yeah, I spotted that, so I take back my initial assesment. Just so you know, Dave Leip put a maximum of three predictions per user, then they get deleted, I think. Btw, Dave, I forgot the password to one of my predictions, the one with my name and a 4. So you can remove that if you wish, it forced me to put another one in, even though I didn't intend to.

[Gustaf]

I thought of putting this in the Economic Numbers section, but didn't think it was good enough of a fit.

Drivers of SUVs and other gas guzzlers may want to keep their vehicles parked over the summer.

That's because some experts are saying that gas could -- gulp -- hit the $3-a-gallon mark.

"It is not only possible, it is probable," said Fred Rozell, director of gasoline pricing for Oil Price Information Service, which tracks and reports on the oil industry. "In the summer, we consume more gasoline than we produce.

"[This year] we won't have that extra supply to help us."

Winter weather, bolstering demand for heating fuels, already has cut U.S. crude stocks to the lowest level since 1975.

And with simple economics -- in particular the supply and demand rule -- consumers can expect the price of gas to reach record levels. Those prices would especially be possible in Chicago, where government regulations require gas stations to supply more costly reformulated gasoline to reduce smog.

"This could be the year that gasoline prices start to change the way people behave," Rozell said. "They may drive less or look to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and get rid of their SUVs."

That $3 threshold shouldn't come as a big surprise to pump watchers. Over the last few days, prices at the pump have done more than just trickle upward --they have soared. Prices have surged more than 7 cents a gallon in the last three weeks.

Several factors are being blamed for the uptick, including rising crude oil prices, a weaker U.S. dollar, colder weather that drove up demand for home heating oil, and two U.S. gasoline reformulations, said analyst Trilby Lundberg.

Earlier this week, the all-grades average retail price of gasoline was 8 cents higher than it was at this time last year. The national weighted average price of gasoline, including taxes, at self-serve pumps was about $1.55 for regular, $1.65 for midgrade, and $1.74 for premium.

But those numbers are only expected to rise.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the forecast for prices to remain stable through the summer banked on crude oil being about $30 a barrel. In the last week, the price of crude oil has flirted in the mid-$30s and could rise further.

Retail analysts say gasoline costs rise about 2.5 cents per gallon for every $1-a-barrel increase in the price of crude oil. And combine that with near record low inventories -- some of the lowest since the long-line days of 1975 -- and drivers may want to learn that CTA map.

But not everyone is ready to buy into the higher prices.

"There is no way that anyone can predict the price of oil next week, let alone next summer," said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for the American Automobile Association. "There is no need to start scaring the consumer with what prices might be."

Sundstrom said the reasons for the short-term increase have been the cold weather and the low inventory, both of which he says will be over in the next few months.

What's a gallon in litres, please, so I know what we're talking about. In Sweden it's 10 SEK, that is roughly 1.33$ per litre, but it's mainly due to a 200% tax on gas.

[Gustaf]

$3/gallon?
That's an issue that could fuel (!) unhappiness with Bush/big oil.

Gustaf - A liter is .264 gallon, slightly more than a U.S. quart.

So $3/gallon would translate into roughly $0.75/litre? Then we're still way above you...