Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 08, 2019, 03:58:44 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 User Predictions - Discussion (search mode)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 820470 times)
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #75 on: January 03, 2004, 09:28:59 pm »

I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?
I do think that those three states will go republican this year.  They were very close in 2000 and expect the small swing to bush in 2004 to makes those states go Republican.

I'm tempted to agree. Still, I have a feeling Nevada, West Virginia and NH could go Dem, which may balance this out; even though that obviously isn't reflected by the average prediction.
Nevada and WV might but I don't think NH will.  And that doesn't exactly balance it out, see the electoral vote totals:

NM: 5
Iowa: 7
Wisconsin: 10
----
NH: 4
WV: 5
Nevada: 5
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #76 on: January 03, 2004, 09:45:38 pm »

dont forget AR--6 more votes, and a chance at OH--20
Arkansas is a distant chance, and Ohio will be tough, but it is winnable.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #77 on: January 03, 2004, 10:01:06 pm »

Ohio may well prove to be a key state. However, assuming Dean is the candidate, would a socially conservative state like Ohio vote for someone like him? It's very doubtful if I'm honest.
It is doubtful, but KEEP HOPE ALIVE.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #78 on: January 04, 2004, 11:53:30 am »

which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.
Yes, those are losable states, as are the entire upper midwestern states.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #79 on: January 04, 2004, 12:49:32 pm »

which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #80 on: January 04, 2004, 03:16:00 pm »

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.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #81 on: January 04, 2004, 03:27:31 pm »

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.
I think I agree with you.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #82 on: January 04, 2004, 03:40:44 pm »

NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #83 on: January 04, 2004, 05:34:40 pm »

Well clark took himself out of VP race today, slamming the door on the South for Dems.

NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.
I still think he may accept if he is offered the job.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #84 on: January 04, 2004, 06:13:51 pm »

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.
That's why I have openly suported Russ Feingold.  This election will be decided in the midwest, and Feingold's the midwestern man!
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #85 on: January 09, 2004, 01:41:10 pm »

Arizona-Went for Bush 51-45% despite Gore not campaigning there.  Likely Republican 2004 but not out of reach.

Colorado-Denver is liberal as hell, but the rest of the state is very conservative, so Republican for the near future.

New Mexico-Has gone Dem in recent Presidential Elections but drifting republican.  Will only go dem is Richardson is VP.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #86 on: January 09, 2004, 03:21:42 pm »

Dean would still win Illinois easily.  In April Polling here in NY, Gephardt trailed Bush by 16%.  Now, Dean has a 5% lead here.

At this time 24 years ago: Carter-62% Reagan 33%.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #87 on: January 09, 2004, 03:33:24 pm »

Are you talking about Illinois in the 200 presidential race?  Because that is what I'm talking about and I'm not sure you are. Smiley
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #88 on: January 09, 2004, 03:36:17 pm »

Ahh, okay.

With your strange quoting policy I get confused.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2004, 01:47:28 pm »

I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Do you have a source/link for the NC info?
Yeah, you got a link?
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2004, 04:49:03 pm »

Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41

Right except 56-41 for Bush.
Bush 51% Dean 47%
Bush 334 Dean 204
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #91 on: January 12, 2004, 04:21:10 pm »

I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #92 on: January 13, 2004, 08:02:33 am »

I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.

Civil unions.
Guns.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #93 on: January 13, 2004, 12:21:13 pm »

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #94 on: January 13, 2004, 01:39:56 pm »

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #95 on: January 13, 2004, 01:43:02 pm »

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #96 on: January 13, 2004, 01:46:43 pm »

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.
Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  Smiley
Nader polled 3.7% here.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #97 on: January 13, 2004, 01:56:43 pm »

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #98 on: January 13, 2004, 02:10:15 pm »

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,600
United States


« Reply #99 on: January 13, 2004, 02:14:39 pm »

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.
You never know politcs can be unpredictable.
but it CAN be predicted accurately.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 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