Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 05, 2019, 12:15:22 pm
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions 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 820150 times)
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« on: November 28, 2003, 12:13:14 am »

How far left has the Dem Party veered?  Well, case in point is Florida which was 50-50 in the last election.  Mason-Dixon released a poll yesterday showing none of the current Dem candidates within 20 points of Bush in Florida.  BTW, Mason-Dixon hit Florida right on in 2000 and was right on the button in the 2002 governor's race.  You are alienating a hell of a lot of swing voters when you go from 50-50 to 20 down.

If what you say is true, Lieberman is not within 20 points of Bush in Florida either, so how can the problem be that Democrats are too far left as you say?

Also I wouldn't categorize the entire West and Northeast as a "cocoon", they are the most populated regions in the country, and together are more populated than the South and Plains states. If Republicans can win elections, It's because the Northeast elects a lot of moderate Republicans (like Olympia Snowe) and because they have an advantage in the swing region, the Midwest right now, probably due to Bush's personal windfall from 9/11 and the feel-good (but troubled) war.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2003, 11:55:08 pm »

The national Democratic party has only moved to the left if you assume that Dean will win the nomination as well as total control of the party. Not all of the "9 guys" are really so far to the left. Obviously there is Lieberman, if he is so far to the left that he would "get buried" in the South, the South is truly finished as a competitive electoral region, and future elections will be decided in the Midwest and West. Gephardt, Edwards, and Clark are all very moderate; supporting the war is at right-wing if not moderate position.

And it's not true that Democrats can win in the South just by being moderate. Look at Ronnie Musgrove-- he campaigned as conservatively as possible and emphasized his support of Bush, but he lost anyway. And Blanco would have lost in Louisiana if not for the racist white vote in Northern Louisiana which went heavily for Bush in 2000 but voted 52% against Jindal.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2003, 08:05:00 pm »

He should really concentrate on holding onto the Gore states. But by reaching out to the South, although he won't win it, he may just make himself moderate enough to win votes in the battleground states in the Midwest and West.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2004, 08:43:57 pm »

Woohoo, we now have 4 active people from Maryland! One more and we can hold elections for senator...

MZ, I think you're a little too optimistic about a ticket headed by Kerry. A Bush-Kerry matchup would be kind of like a Bush-Dukakis matchup, I fear. Kerry has the same problem of looking like he is equivocating about the war, plus his voting record. I think he could do better than Dean but that's not saying much; I don't think he could win Ohio, Arkansas or Nevada.

Right now Edwards, Clark, or Lieberman are the best possible choices to head the ticket. Unfortunately they're polling at 9, 13, and 9 percent, respectively, in New Hampshire. If Kerry wins in New Hampshire he'll have virtually unstoppable momentum going into the Feb. 3 states, most of which are not as conservative as South Carolina. Even if its a narrow win, or Dean narrowly beats Kerry, the other states are going to see it as a choice between Dean and Kerry and go for Kerry.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2004, 01:07:04 am »

Ohio just passed right to carry legislation and a bill against gay marriages.  A conservative trend?


Neat map Mort, but I think Bush wins Ohio.

It's not necessarily a trend. Gallup polls in Ohio in 2001-2003 found it to be one of the most socially conservative states in the U.S.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2004, 12:48:55 am »

Thats how it has been as of late. States the contain the very largest cities have gone democrat. New York, PA, NJ, NY, CA, MI, and Ill.

Texas and Florida have some big-ass cities and they (the Florida ones) were decisive in the last election. Atlanta and Phoenix are also pretty big, not as big as Chicago and New York, but they can match up with Detriot easily.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2004, 01:02:48 am »

I agree large cities are ruling the roost right now. Thank God the framers were wise enough to put a system in that takes some of the edge off that influence (Electoral College).

Well theres a reason they're important. It's because the majority of the population either lives in one or works in the economic umbrella created by one. Actually I think the electoral college is outdated. One vote in Wyoming wields as much power as three votes in Georgia. Thats disenfranchising Georgia voters.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2004, 01:10:07 am »

IMHO 1 vote in a major city is worth 3 votes compared to Stick Town, North Dakota.

No, look at Dave's EV/population ratios. Its not about city vs country but big state vs small state.
Logged
Beet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,898


« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2004, 01:11:51 am »
« Edited: March 08, 2004, 01:12:20 am by Beet »

Actually its worse than I thought. Wyoming has about 150,000 persons per EV whereas Georgia has about 600,000 persons per EV.
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