Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2019, 03:11:10 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] Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 814279 times)
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« on: January 05, 2004, 01:09:20 pm »

Dazzleman's comparison of Nixon's electoral fortunes to Bush's, as a caveat to comparing 2004 to 2000, are well taken.

Let us not forget, however, that McGovern was tranparently liberal and anti-war, while Dean attempts to sway with the breeze. Already we hear his apologists claiming what a moderate governor he was (as if Vermont politics somehow resembles national politics). And we have the sorry spectacle of Dean himself shamelessly pretending to have some religious side, misquoting the Bible in interviews meant to play to Southern audiences.

The point is, might not enough baby-boomer Democrats in the pivotal Democratic states, hungry for the White House, resentful of the 2000 victory, romanced by the youthful fervor of a Dean campaign, and lulled into complacency by successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, turn out for Dean?

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.

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 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.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2004, 01:40:37 pm »

The "new migrants" in Nevada that I'm thinking of are the middle class from California and Democratic states in the the East and MidWest, who have flooded the Las Vegas Valley in the last four years and would love to vote in a pivotal state in 2004.

And in New Hampshire, you have a growing Vermont-type youth culture gradually replacing the older, libertarian voter. Not to mention the Dean hordes from Burlington coming over to organize and spend the summer in the White Mountains.

I just don't think Republicans should be complacent against Dean.

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.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2004, 12:01:35 pm »

What are the chances that Democrats in the February and March primaries will realize Dean's potential weakness as a nominee, and pledge enough delegates to other candidates to throw the choice to the convention?
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2004, 09:54:53 am »

Edwards wouldn't need the South, but if he made Bush commit resources there that would be a strength for him. Like any Democrat, he simply needs a solid Northeast and Far West, combined with a good showing in the Great Lakes and Southwest.

I don't know if anyone agrees, but I'm beginning to sense the media souring on Dean this week. The New Republic endorsed Lieberman, and a number of NY Times articles have focused on Clark and Edwards, and on primary voters who are changing their minds about Dean. Perhaps the sharks are gathering now that his poll numbers are slipping in NH.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2004, 11:06:52 am »

Well, sure, lots of stories and analysis hatch in the political media, and if the mass media senses they have selling power they may pick up the ball.

Also, the campaigns themselves look to the political media for ideas and lines of attack.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2004, 02:03:25 pm »

I believe that the long term demographic in NM and NV favors the Democrats. Beyond Hispanics, there is a significant movement of young people and retirees, not only from CA, but from urban areas in the East, to fast growing towns like Las Vegas, Henderson, and Santa Fe. AZ and CO are not the same - their population centers have been established for a longer time and are more conservative - I wouldn't put them in the Democratic column unless the Democrats had a real edge nationally.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2004, 01:49:43 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.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2004, 02:12:24 pm »

Dean is already alienating hordes of moderate Democrats, and the Bush campaign is showing it's strategy of winning them over in NY, NJ, and CT (see today's NY Times op-ed piece by Christie Whitman, "The Vital Republican Center").
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2004, 04:34:30 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.

In 1984 and 1988 social issues were of less importance than they are now. When economic issues are the focus, NY leans Dem but is competitive. With the focus on social issues, NY is strongly Dem. Dean would only lose NY in a McGovern/Mondale landslide.
In 2004, response to 9/11 is the new prominent issue.

A lot of otherwise liberal NY City voters can't support a Dean, who has already staked out an anti-war stance. Lieberman is polling second here, and many of his supporters are not going over to Dean.

On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".

I agree that Dean would lose NY only if the Dems go down big, but I think that just a little worse than Dukakis would do it.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2004, 11:16:44 pm »

<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.

Miami, I can't see why anyone would take offense, particularly because I wasn't "codifying" all Jews as Israel supporters, which they are not. Perhaps I should clarify by saying that I'm a Jew who turned off to Dean as soon as I heard the Middle East remark.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2004, 11:45:21 pm »

Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
There's no question that if the contest is Bush-Dean, there will never be a starker contrast between two candidates on the issue of support for Israel.

The rise in anti-Semitism on the European left is another reason that more Jews are feeling uncomfortable with Euro-American multilateralism on matters regarding the Middle East.

I'd say that if the Democrat is anti-war or has a muddy position, we're going to see an accelerated erosion of the Democratic Jewish vote. With two million Jews in New York City, that's gotta matter.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2004, 04:26:32 pm »

$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.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2004, 11:52:07 am »

I wondered about how much the individual states really swung last time around (correcting for the effects of Perot and Nader and for the slight left swing nationally) and what would happen if they just continue to behave that way and came up with the following:
I added up the lead of Rep+Reform+Libertarian over Dem+Green for every state for 96 and 2000.
I compared the change with the 2.12%point swing nationally.
Me, In, Mn, Ia, Mo, ND, SD, Mt, Id, Wy, NM, Ut and all southern states except De, Md, DC, Va and Fl swung to the right, the other 26+1 to the left if compared with the national average. The strongest swings are in Ar (understandably) for the Reps and in Ct for the Dems. The Republican outliers are much stronger than the Democratic ones by the way. Ct swung leftwards by 9.76% Seven Pro-Rep states did more (ND, SD, WV, AR, LA, TX, WY).
Then I went on and made a prediction based on that for 2004. For simplicity's sake I presumed left-wing and right-wing equal and dems and reps equal. (The third parties won't matter much in 2004) So I let every state swing 2.46% to the right (the 2000 left lead) and then swing against that by as much as in 2000. Obviously the results become slightly nonsensical in states that swung a whole lot, or that had favorite-sons in 96 or 2000 (Ar,Ks,Tx). But for the "normal" states it's a worthy method I think.
So here's my findings: The Dems gain Florida and lose Iowa and New Mexico (which would make them win nationally, 275-263).
The most marginal states will be Florida (0,19% lead), New Hampshire (0,61), Wisconsin (0,77), Nevada (0,99), New Mexico (1,86), Iowa (2,42-quite large actually), Minnesota (3,13), and Ohio (3,74).
I was surprised by how safe Pennsylvania looks - an 8,82 Dem lead.
So, you're trying to see where states were moving 1996-2000 after discounting the national swing, and predict 2004 on that basis?

If so, would the validity of that method increase if you went back to say, 1988? Then you could plot the swings and create a 16-year trendline of political leaning for each state.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2004, 11:49:48 pm »

Now this story fromt he WSJ today could sum up what a lot of vets thinka bout Kerry.  My father could have written this article.  he is a vetnam vet that was awarded the bronze star and he says kerry is a disgrace for turning his back on the men who were still over there fighting like my father.  Plus vets hate anythign to do with Jane "I am a traitor" Fonda.  My father would shut the TV off when she came on when I was growing up.

..........Of all the "lessons of Vietnam," surely one is that America needs a leader capable of demonstrating in himself, and encouraging in others, the resolve to finish what they have collectively started.

I believe that those who still feel we should have finished what we started in Vietnam are very likely to be voting Republican this fall.

Kerry's switch on Vietnam is not what the broad middle will take issue with, it's the failure of his positions and his personality to gel into a character that people will want as President.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2004, 11:35:52 am »

UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:


Bush 270 to Kerry 268

Miami, I think that this map is real close to the best prediction that could be made at this point in time. In fact, not being afraid to jinx Kerry, and not wanting these republican guys to get too complacent, I would make WV red, swinging the whole thing to Kerry (without a single southwest state, not even NM).

In fact, throw in NH and IA, and you can give the GOP back MN or WS and still win.

The critical mass of this election is definitely in the midwest. OH is the lynchpin, and MN, WS, IA and WV are in no way solid Bush country this cycle, not against a strong Dem statement on jobs and working class families with a hint of protectionism thrown in for good measure.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2004, 12:23:18 pm »

MY PREDICTION

At this point in the primary season, I have seen enough to be persuaded that the Democrats are a party still reacting to the Cliniton impeachment and 2000 electoral debacles. The leadership is unable to articulate coherent, positive domestic or foreign policies, and instead is hoping that enough goes wrong with the economy or Iraq that the incumbent will be judged harshly. I don't see this message changing much through Election Day.

If Iraq stays out of a civil war and the economy stays clear of oil-price-induced inflation, the Republicans should be able to persuade the dwindling middle to stick with them, in spite of the highly polarized environment. Although Bush could lose the popular vote and still squeak out a win, I predict he'll get about 49.7% of the PV, less than 1% more than the Dems, but giving him the edge in the key Midwest battleground states of IA, WS, OH, and MO. He'll lose MN and MI, PA will be the closest state, which the Dems will win by a hair:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/USERMAPS/pe20041035C1.gif
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #16 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
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #17 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
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #18 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
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2004, 09:35:53 am »

Thanks, Vorlon, for sharing what sounds like an informed opinion on polling.

The upcoming campaign is sure to be hard fought and bitter, and polls will likely be used to misinform as much as inform.

Knowing what's scientific and what's not would be very helpful.
Logged
Mort from NewYawk
MortfromNewYawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 399


« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2004, 01:29:21 pm »


Bush doesn't have to worry about his base - either cultural conservatives or business people - for one big reason:  the alternative is so horrible.  The conservatives see that two or three Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the next President, and the business people see that Kerry will raise their taxes enormously.  For all Republicans, a Bush victory is vital.  

I think vital is a bit of an overstatement. Politicians have relatively little effect, moreso in the US than anywhere else.
A change from the Bush administration to a Kerry administration would mean a turnaround in foreign policy. The people advising the President in national security, a completely appointed area, would be completely different.
Logged
Pages: [1] 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