Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2019, 12:42:24 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] Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 811451 times)
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« on: January 08, 2004, 12:57:41 am »

Great site, great game.

This is so hard.     Bush is not the same moderate candidate that ran in 2000----and then not knowing which Dem gets the nod.  But this is like having 4 variables.  Bush A, Bush B, Dean, Clark.

Making a list of gray states, I came up with 10, which includes my own.
MO, NV, NH, MI, SC, OH, WI, FL IA, OR.

This list presumes Clark with the nomination.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2004, 04:51:25 pm »

They certainly played the ending of his speech enough times.....when seeing a little more, it just seemed to me very typical of a windup of a hot sermon, (revivalist style close--Dean seemed to enjoying it and laughing at himself.)  But the play (just a snippet) it's been given is a reach.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2004, 12:15:39 pm »

Hi all,

I'm new to this forum, but I'm a political obsessive and the discussions here are really cool.  

I just posted my prediction map....maybe a little optimistic for the Democrats, but I think pretty reasonable.  It assumes the Dems nominate someone with at least some Southern appeal.

I have five Bush states switching:
Ohio
Louisiana
Arkansas
Arizona
Nevada

Louisiana seems to be the Southern state most amendable to voting for a Democrat, even during the Bush-era.  (Gov '03, Sen '02, LA-03 in '02)

Maybe it's a few years to0 early to shift Arizona and Nevada to the Dem column, but I'm pretty confidence they'll shift eventually given their growth and demographic changes.

I see Bush holding on to West Virginia and Florida (unless Bob Graham is VP).  The GOP showed real strength in FL in '02, and Bush is trouncing every Dem in all polls there (same with NH, come to think).  And I think the declining influence of labor in WV has turned it into a "Southern state" for good.

Nick G


Very interesting analysis, Nick.  I'm going to look at yours more carefully when I have some time.   Floridia is a tremendous question mark to me, in view of not ever having a proper count to refer to.  I don't know which way to call it--but I know the black vote should turn out in record numbers there....I'm new, too, and enjoy talking with others on both sides of the aisle who are not trolls.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2004, 05:31:58 pm »

It was a very, very hard war to support as time went on.   Especially after the release of the Pentagon Papers.  I don't think anyone was untouched by it.   It was not as clear cut as WWII.    I think we'll get a chance to see the troops react again.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2004, 09:57:52 pm »

It was a very, very hard war to support as time went on.   Especially after the release of the Pentagon Papers.  I don't think anyone was untouched by it.   It was not as clear cut as WWII.    I think we'll get a chance to see the troops react again.

It was very far from being as clear cut as WWII.
Opposition to the Vietnam war was greater than any other war in American history.  The sad thing is, we went knid of half-assed into Vietnam.  I wouldn't have supported it from the outset, but put your will into it if you are going to fight a war.  For example, I would have voted no in authorizing force in Iraq but yes on the 87 Billion for Iraq.

Is that so?  Edwards voted against spending the money.

If memory serves me right, Bush refused to furnish cost estimates prior to the vote to attack Iraq, saying impossible to furnish this.  (Not true, BTW--they had cost estimates in Feb. 2001, right after the inaugruation) then Congress reluctantly went along with the invasion, and *right* after the war had begun, Bush asked for the $87 billion.   It's hard to vote no when troops were already under fire.   That's what the choice was, which actually was no choice at all.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2004, 12:55:30 am »

[
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The GOP will likely use this -- VN protesting--but it should be remembered that this was a winner of the Silver Star and Purple Heart who was out of the service, and was protesting to get the rest out of VN.  If ever a person has earned the right to protest, it's a purple heart winner of that war, in my opinion.  I think Kerry is handlilng it right--"it was a bad time"....those who have seen "Born on the Fourth of July" will understand the anguish of knowing one got screwed by one's own government.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2004, 11:25:17 am »

but kerry also threw back his medals, (well somebody's calling them his at the time)  I know a lot of vets personally that are independant or democrats around my area that think his actions after he came home were reprehensible.

In fact they compare him to Pete Rose,  great on the field but dishonorable off.  Sounded about right to me.  They all said they'd support other Democrats but not him, they tend to more like Clark it seems.

[
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


You know when one is protesting you want to make the most powerful statement you can--stuff you do for the cameras.  It strikes as as just a visual.  Actually, that he organized despite organized scorn from the LBJ WH that was out of control, and out of step with the country, and it was people like Kerry that eventually caused LBJ, a fellow dem,  to not run again.   I see those vets that protested publicly as sort of heros all over again.  And you know the rest.  The people turned to Nixon to get them out of VN.  And he did, and it was not easy.    
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2004, 02:03:57 pm »

GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2004, 07:09:26 pm »

<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Tatoo artists! lol.  How about
GOP: Southern Baptist ministers, left-handed golfers?.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2004, 10:31:57 pm »

<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Tatoo artists! lol.  How about
GOP: Southern Baptist ministers, left-handed golfers?.

GOP- White collar criminals, pyramid schemers, poachers.

DEM- Crack dealers, strippers, boxers, carnies, pimps.

Dems: Journalists/reporters, gardens, reads 1+ book per year, listens to NPR, watches CNN, Jim Lehr, subscribes to a news mag.

GOP: News Publishers, cops, Country Western fans, bowlers, reads less than 1 book per year, plays paint-ball,  Fox, Reality TV, subscribes to SI.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2004, 01:07:28 pm »

Is it just you two or are all people from Oregon this cynical about their own voters?

Oregonians are very pragmatic, as in the practical sense.  I think it was first settled by former Missourians! (Oregon has a lot of "firsts" to its credit.)
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2004, 10:41:05 pm »

My map shows a true, but not total victory for the Republicans.  Kerry may pull 100 votes or so, but Bush should hopefully win.

Reaganfan, did you ever come across this story? just stumbled on it yesterday, and was a shock to me.........  I have no idea of the veracity of this, but can vouch that JFK, JR arrived at the same conclusion as to his father's assassination.
------


HINCKLEY AND BUSH FAMILIES WERE CLOSE FRIENDS
Connie Cook Smith's "What America Needs to Know"

We all know who John Hinckley, Jr. is, now being released from a mental facility in D.C. for nearly killing President Reagan in 1981. A much more interesting subject is, who is John Hinckley, Sr.?

In 1980, Hinckley Sr. was a Texas oilman who, the records show, strove mightily to get fellow Texas oilman George H.W. Bush the Republican nomination for president. The Bushes and the Hinckleys were frequent dinner companions.

But far beyond their social connection, neither Bush nor Hinckley wanted Ronald Reagan to become president, because Reagan was opposed to the tax breaks for the oil industry which Bush and Hinckley and other Texans were highly dependent on.

The effort to make Bush Sr. president in 1980 failed, but he and his backer Hinckley Sr. got the next best thing -- the "heartbeat away from the presidency" office of Vice-President of the United States.

A few months later, Hinckley Jr. shot Reagan, and Bush very nearly did become president at that time, after all. Only one time was it announced on the news about the connections between the Bush and Hinckley families: An almost bewildered John Chancellor on NBC Nightly News reported "the bizarre
coincidence" that Neil Bush and Scott Hinckley had dinner plans for March 31, 1981 -- now cancelled, of course.

In other words, the brother of the shooter and the son of the vice-president (and their wives) had a dinner date for the day after the shooting. But it really wasn't such "a bizarre coincidence." Those two families were very
close, but the press never focused on that, as it should have. If Reagan had died, the oilmen's interests would have been served.

Some people think that Hinckley Jr. was mind-controlled, CIA-style, to shoot Reagan. Bush was head of the CIA a few years before, by the way. Others think that Jr. wanted to please his dad and get Bush, his dad's candidate, into the presidency for him after all. And legal experts note that the crime occurred in Washington, D.C., the only venue in the United States at that
time which recognized an insanity defense. If the kid committed the crime in D.C., he would never serve hard time? Well, coincidentally, that's where he committed it.

A very good read on the Hinckley-Bush connections is a book that came out about 20 years ago, entitled "The Afternoon of March 30." It was published as a novel in order to protect the author. This book is now more relevant than ever, and you can obtain it at click here.

In closing, there's another coincidence to mention. I just learned that in January of 1963, President John F. Kennedy announced a plan to cut the tax breaks for the oil industry. Oilmen H.L. Hunt, George H.W. Bush (head of Zapata Petroleum), and others were no doubt enraged. What a coincidence that Kennedy was shot in Texas later that same year.

In the 1990's LBJ's now-undisputed mistress Madeleine Brown announced that LBJ told her Kennedy was murdered "by the oil people, and aspects of the CIA."

And gosh, one more coincidence! We now have another Bush, the oilman's son, becoming U.S. President in a very quirky election. And apparently, he gave the American people completely phony reasons for invading Iraq, one of the
most oil-rich nations in the Middle East
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2004, 12:40:46 am »

Odd. Very odd. BTW, I see your backing Clark. He voted for Reagan.....

Yes, and I did, too......While I liked Carter, I felt he was losing the support of the people in a way that was unstoppable, and despite how much I liked him, a President must have support.  And Reagan was very likeable and persuasive--probably the most liked president ever.
Logged
mossy
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 95


« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2004, 01:18:11 am »

This is weird.......I found more, and I vouch for NOTHING!

Look at this--

it says Reagan was blackmailed by Bush into getting named the VP, and was co-President, according to James Brady......(was this before or after he was shot??)

If anyone would know, Nancy Reagan would--R. told her everything.   Anyone remember what opinion she had of Bush, Sr? in her book?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X52A24247

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