Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2019, 07:08:27 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions 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 5 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 799357 times)
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« on: January 05, 2004, 07:05:07 am »

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, Arkansaw, 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.  
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2004, 12:25:49 pm »

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.

Utter Rubbish?  I don't see any 'evidence' in your post either.  Just a claim.  If you refuse to accept voter's behavior in previous elections as evidence, then I suppose there's no evidence to say one state is more Republican and another more Democratic.  Perhaps Bush will sweep the Northeast while Dean will win a big majority in Texas.

Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2004, 01:25:11 pm »


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.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2004, 01:19:47 pm »

I think that people overstate the difference between Dean and other potential Democratic nominees, based on subtle differences in their place on the ideological spectrum.  Ultimately it is not Dean's extreme leftism that makes him unelectable, it is his region - Leiberman would fare just as badly, and he's supposedly less left wing.  Interestingly, because the South is so strongly Republican now, I don't think nominating a Southerner would actually carry any southern states - for example I doubt Edwards could even carry North Carolina, just like Gore couldn't carry Tennessee.  The exception would be a very conservative Democrat like Zell Miller or John Breaux, but they're supposedly nearly Republican and could never make it through the primary.  

A southerner or midwesterner could carry swing states in the Midwest, however, like Ohio, Wisconsin, or Iowa.  Gephardt is supposed to be the candidate Karl Rove most fears.  I'd have to say however that Gephart is not a very good midwestern candidate, since I can report he's very unpopular in Missouri outside of St. Louis - I'm not at all sure he'd carry the state against Bush.  I doubt he could be elected governer of Missouri for example - voters outside St. Louis dislike St. Louis pols like the rest of the country dislikes Northeastners.  

 
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2004, 02:13:05 pm »

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

I agree Realpolitik that Edwards is further left than he is percieved to be - and this goes to my point that people percieve candidates by their region more than their ideology.  Ideology can be hard to pin down, whereas a Southern accent automatically makes right wingers give you the benefit of the doubt, and left wingers view you with suspicion.  
Of course I see ALL Democrats as too left wing!
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2004, 12:51:58 pm »

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 agree with agcat, Edwards couldn't carry North Carolina, much less any other Southern State.  Above you mention a 'good showing' in the Southwest and the Great Lakes.  I think the Great Lakes states that barely went for Gore in 2000 are not going to be any more or less likely to vote for Edwards than for some other Democrat.  

As for the good showing in the Southwest, I think that brings up an interesting point - many posted maps for a Democrat win include either Arizona, Colorado, or both.  This seems quite a stretch.   I'm the first to admit that New Mexico could easily go Democrat, but I doubt the other two will.  Does anyone have any information on why these two formerly very Republican states would change at this point?  Hispanics?  Surely it can't be escapees from California (I suspect those who flee CA are the Republicans from there).

Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2004, 09:10:19 am »

I think it'll be the 2000 map all over again with Edwards picking up New Hampshire and Missouri to squeek out a 275-263 victory

No, Edwards wouldn't pick up Missouri or New Hampshire.  What he might pick up would be West Virginia, and possible one or more of Arkansas, Louisana, Florida.  In descending order of likelihood.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2004, 02:53:46 pm »

that could be a while, the dems don't know who it will be now.


I'm not making any more predictions until I am have some idea of who the Dem. nominee is going to be.

Exactly, that's why I'm not making any for the general election.  I predicted it would be BushvDean and Dean would get slaughtered, now there is a STRONG chance he may not tbe the nominee.  He still could be, but for now I'll hold judgment.

Alas, we Republicans are going to have to let go of our boy Dean.  It would've been lovely, but he's not going to make it.  In fact we'll be darn lucky if we get Kerry.  The worst one is Edwards, and as a pessimist, I would guess we'll get him.  He's beatable, as a left-wing trial lawyer, but his appearance and youth are all that will matter to an awfully lot of the emptier-headed voters.  But I'm still holding out hope for Kerry.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2004, 07:11:11 am »

BTW, can someone explain to me why Missouri is pronounced Mizzourah by easterners?

I've lived a few miles north of it for my whole life, and I've never heard it pronounced that way by an Iowan. I was watching the newshour and Jim Lehrer prounounced it "Mizzourah" and I almost burst out laughing. Tongue

Is Jim Lehrer an Easterner?  I think that people up near Iowa - Northern Missouri - pronounce it like you do - Mizzoureee.  But in the Southern part of the state, in the rural areas, many people do actually pronounce it Mizzourah.  But its far from universal even down there.  I grew up down that way but have alway used EE myself.  
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2004, 07:30:31 am »

Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2004, 01:29:28 pm »

I think the impact of the tax issue is far less than many suspect on voting patterns.

The top 50% of the population pays 95% of all federal income & estate taxes - this fact is presented not as an argument one way or another regarding the fairness of the tax system, but rather to argue that on the tax issue, there exists such a huge divide between the taxed and the untaxed that minor fiddling at the edges makes little to no difference in voting patterns.

For the bottom 50%, they pay so little taxes, that even if their federal taxes were totally eliminated (as they were/will be for about 15 million people if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent) the net impact on their lives is rather small - in short - they recieve so much from government in terms of welfare, health care, etc that their sole and only interest is more government - government they don't have to pay for.

Yes there are Democrats in the top 50% who pay towards the 95% of taxes the top 50% pay, but these people in the top 50% who vote Democratic are overwhelmingly those who benifit from Goverment in that they are teachers, bureaucrats, government workers, etc, and thus are also in net receipt of tax revenue, not payers of tax.

A startling fact:

If you know just 5things about a person:

1) - If they work in the public or private sector:
3) - If they attend church regularly
4) - Their family income
5) - Marital status
6) - Field of study if higher educated

you can predict with 95% accuracy how they will vote

~~Gridlock is good!~~Vote for Divided Government~~
~~More Gridlock = Better Government~~

.....A Cunuck Libertarian.....




What you describe is the best indictment I can think of of the 'progressive' income tax.  Basically voters are incentivised to vote left-wing and rob their economic betters.  This is the best argument against tax cuts that reduce middle class taxes.  Republicans should never go along with this creation of a 'tax free' class.  Some kind of poll tax would be better.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2004, 07:23:52 am »

It was hard not to like Reagan's optimism even if you totally disagreed with his ideology.  As I remember, the economy was in the toilet and we had horrible setbacks in foreign policy in the late 70s.  At the time, America really did need that dose of optimism.  

Yeah, back in the seventies and very early eighties people would've thought the 2000-2001 'recession' was some kind of boom.  Now those were the days people had actual hard times.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2004, 12:44:35 pm »

Two Stars?  Five Stars?  What is that all about?

Hey did anyone else notice that the submitted board average is now a Democrat win in electoral votes?  What balderdash!  
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2004, 01:13:58 pm »

281 for your list.  but I doubt a number of them, VA being at the top of the list.


Here is my president forever prediction of a clark/edwards ticket...

DEMOCRAT
HA
WA
OR
CA
NV
IA
LA
IL
MI
OH
TN
WV
VA
DC
MD
DE
NJ
NY
CT
RI
MA
VT
NH
ME

with the rest republican. If anyone could be bothered to do an EV count, that would be cool. in the game there were still 160 undecideds (I only have the demo)


Yeah VA is solid Republican imo.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2004, 12:07:08 pm »

Hello All:

Its been some time since I last posted and a lot has happened.  I think I am ready to say that Howard Dean is probably finished.  But my problem right now is who I am going to support.  I am not to wild about Kerry right now, Edwards is a conservative democrat with a middle-class upbringing, and I think Clark MUST be on the ticket in order for the Dems to beat Bush.  

Right now the media has shifted its attention to Kerry's so-called ties to special interests. (Any information from you good people about this topic, regardless of party affiliation, is helpful).  But while the media is attacking Kerry on the subject of special interests, they are contradicting themselves by supporting Bush; an embodiment of special interests (e.g. the oil industry, Halliburton, Clear Channel, News Corporation, to name a few).  

Just keep this fact (NOT OPINION, this is not coming from Fantasy land) in mind when you support Bush.  I know I will get attacked on this subject but I don't care, I am breaking my silence and I am happy and proud to do it.  

While I am not clear about who I will support for the nomination, I will say that the Dems need Clark more than he needs them.  

Sleep tight everybody and be sure to vote.

S2DM
 

Yeah, yeah - corporations = special interests.  Wrong!  America in case  you haven't noticed, is a capitalist country.  The only thing a corporation ever tried to do to me was sell me some appealing good or service at a reasonable price, or conversely, hire me and pay me money!  Wow - how evil.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2004, 02:07:27 pm »

Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2004, 02:23:33 pm »

Mining communities are almost always very poor, very left wing (on economics) and are also union dominated.
And don't like capitalism at all...

In the U.K, the Labour Party dominates the Coalfields, while in France the Valenciennes Coalfield is a traditional stronghold of the PCF.

And in the U.S the Appalachian Coalfield is very easy to spot on a National County Map.

Rather perverse given that Capitalism is what creates economic growth which creates enormous increases in coal consumption.  But I realize these may not be rational voters - more like envy/alienation voters.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2004, 02:56:37 pm »

Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.

Why would you be pro-coal? Nuclear power is the way to go, imo.

Oh I like nuclear power, but coal really is best - its cheap, easily available, and the one thing it has over nuclear is it is terror-proof.  They can blow up coal plants and all we have to do is build another one.  If they blow up a nuke plant we loose a few counties at least.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2004, 02:58:23 pm »

UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:


Bush 270 to Kerry 268

Wow, Bush winning without Ohio.. now that is a cool map.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2004, 03:03:58 pm »

Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.

Why would you be pro-coal? Nuclear power is the way to go, imo.

Oh I like nuclear power, but coal really is best - its cheap, easily available, and the one thing it has over nuclear is it is terror-proof.  They can blow up coal plants and all we have to do is build another one.  If they blow up a nuke plant we loose a few counties at least.


But it's bad for the environment and it is limited, in the sense that it will run out at some point, and definitely get more expensive.

Yeah in about 200 years.  
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2004, 12:50:07 pm »

Neat map Mort, but I think Bush wins Ohio.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2004, 01:01:08 am »

Neat map Mort, but I think Bush wins Ohio.
That was my map.

I think a perfect storm of events are happening in Ohio and Kerry will win the state 50-49% or so.

Oh, sorry about that.  Neat Map Miami.  Anyway, what 'perfect storm of events' is happening in Ohio?  As far as I can tell, a very ordinary, somewhat conservative state is experiencing some excessive localized unemployment, but it will probably trend in the right direction over the next 10 months.  I think everything other than unemployement favors Republicans in Ohio.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2004, 12:09:04 pm »

Have to say, thanks to the great folk at Zogby, the Muslim vote in the USA is trending more Democratic now, not a majority yet, but there are many angry people out there. The renegade Catholic vote may also swing back to the Dems, of course thats just hearsay, My (Catholic)relatives in California voted Bush last time round because of the abortion issue, but that is no longer an issue with them. As they stem from a Labour voting British Catholic family- i hope they back the Dems again!

The Muslims are not going to tip any state one way or the other.  They're simply too few and too unlikely to vote.  Perhaps afraid of John Ashcroft!
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2004, 12:38:49 am »

Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

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.
1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.

Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.

Ok.. I guess I should respond to this.  I am, as others have said in this thread, rather cynical and do believe in 'realpolitic', etc.  But I think its a bit much to call me a Nazi!  I think there's a big difference in being a bit Nixonian (and an admirer of Kissinger) and being a Nazi.  
Seriously though I never thought Bush would really fake bin laden's capture, I was just hypothesizing.  But I think the reason it would never happen is more because it wouldn't work than because its 'wrong'.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,076


« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2004, 12:46:42 am »

True, though he never really talks about social issues much, so maybe he is more liberal on those, but just emphasizes his conservative positions.

He's said that he "certainly" isn't a Christian, which says something.

Classical Liberal, not religious in any fashion, though reared as a 'Wasp'.  My only comment on religions is whether or not I like their influence on society - for example I enjoy living in a Buddhist country.  I support the Republicans because they're the party of economic freedom *relatively speaking*.  I'm a bit Machiavelian in my view of politics because I'm not quite as enamoured of 'democracy' as most of you guys.
Anyway, enough about boring old me - OH will go Bush in '04 as long as the economy booms between now and Nov.  Will be close though.  And yes Supersoulties right Muslims don't matter in OH.

Btw Soup I look a bit like Talent as well..
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 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