2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[GOPman]

What I find amuzing is the fact that the Dems REALLY want to nominate Howard Dean because he is what they really stand for. Up until the "I have a Scream" speech in Iowa, they were still behind him. They realized that the fringe of his speech was so commonplace, it would scare the commonman. So what happens next? They turn to the next best liberal, and go with Kerry who is more liberal than Tedward Kennedy. Kerry will now be the nominee, and when the news of his politics as Lt. Gov under Mike Dukakis come out, it will reinforce the fact that the Democratic Party is a party of leftys, who cannot appeal to the broad base of America.

Has anyone ever thought about the reason why the GOP has the larger support from individual donors, as opposed to the Big Corp./Union donations needed by the Dems? The GOP has a broader base, and it will be shown in the 2004 election when Bush wins...BIGTIME!

[GOPman]

I agree wholeheartedly. How many polls do you see of those business people who want to be heard? You don't because they don't want people to see the regular class working guys in favorable light to the Republicans. People will see the President Bush's policies actually do work! How about that, a GOP Prez actually having good economic policy? How often do we see that on the news. When we have 7-8 percentage growth in a quarter, and get next to nothing in publicity, its obvious the news organizations are keeping it out of the airwaves. They have hit Bush on everything they can think of, and it just doenst work. This silly thing about his Air Guard Service will backfire, it keeps them worked up, but will tick off the common voter. They see Bush in a real USA Fighter Plane as a real USA Fighter Pilot! The dems may not want all those images after all.

[GOPman]

Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to.

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:

You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes. You have to look at the past presidential elections, and factor those together. West Va would be considered more democratic, however I believe that they will go Bush this time.

Florida on the other hand has ALWAYS been solid GOP. This notion about how it leans democratic must be coming from the close election of 2000. FL went GOP in 1992, and would have went GOP in 1996 had Perot not been running. Clinton did not win but by a few points. I think with all that in mind you have to consider 2000 as more a fluke for being so close. Since 2000, more people in FL are now registered GOP than Dem, the first time in the state! FL doesn't lean GOP, it will be reliably GOP in 2004.

If you look at the LA Gov race, you had basically identical candidates for Gov. It was an off year so the GOP expected to do worse than normal. Had you had a John "F" Kerry run in LA, GOP would have won big time. The Dems win in the south with a "moderate" dem, or at least in Edwards case, a "perceived" moderate.

[GOPman]

you didn't answer my first point, would you feel differently if the Republicans had lost the vote and the reason was the prevention of eligible voters from voting

Where are you getting your data for this accusation? And how are you showing that ALL those names were "similar" or the "same" as eligible voters? And how are you sure those voters who were turned away would have voted democrat and not republican? Please respond.

[GOPman]

OK, I'll give my prediction.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1453

Not too much to add to what I said there...this is before the Nader and Moore announcements, but I'm going to wait to adjust for those. I believe I gave Alaska, Wyoming and Utah to GWB by 70%+ totals, which I can see happening. I was more confident about the Dems ability to hold what they got in 2000 because I don't think the Reps have done a very good job at trying to sway the Gore states. And, like him or hate him, GWB has turned out to be quite a polarizing president, which means that all you people predicting huge margins for either side are being awfully silly.

Hey WMS...has Moore stated he is running? I didn't hear that.

[GOPman]

Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to.

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:

You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes. You have to look at the past presidential elections, and factor those together. West Va would be considered more democratic, however I believe that they will go Bush this time.

Florida on the other hand has ALWAYS been solid GOP. This notion about how it leans democratic must be coming from the close election of 2000. FL went GOP in 1992, and would have went GOP in 1996 had Perot not been running. Clinton did not win but by a few points. I think with all that in mind you have to consider 2000 as more a fluke for being so close. Since 2000, more people in FL are now registered GOP than Dem, the first time in the state! FL doesn't lean GOP, it will be reliably GOP in 2004.

If you look at the LA Gov race, you had basically identical candidates for Gov. It was an off year so the GOP expected to do worse than normal. Had you had a John "F" Kerry run in LA, GOP would have won big time. The Dems win in the south with a "moderate" dem, or at least in Edwards case, a "perceived" moderate.

First off: I am not looking at gubernatorial races as a driver for my model, I am not sure what you are getting at, and I am incorporating the last few presidential elections.

WEST VIRGINIA - Darn it. I just knew I shouldn't have gotten in the business of manual adjustments yesterday.

Yesterday, I took a suggestion to tweak my predictions for West Virginia...now I hear the exact opposite from you.

Ruling: I'm moving WV back to the original settings and keeping it there!

FLORIDA: This adjustment I will keep; I boosted Florida's "Conservative Quotient" (that has a nice ring to it) already, per the consensus suggestion yesterday.

All Bush has to do is keep his approval ratings from falling any lower and he'll win the Sunshine State. That's not going to be difficult now, is it?

LOUISIANA: I stand by this one. Bush clears Lousiana even if his nationwide ratings fall below 49%.

What I don't get is that in your first paragraph, you tell me not to concern myself with gubernatorial races, and here you create a fantasy football league situation in which a candidate from Massachusetts runs for Lousiana governor. Of course he'd be killed. He's not from Louisiana!

And Trent Lott would be killed if he ran for governor in Michigan; things that Mississippians are willing to accept or overlook, the Michiganders won't.

That's why I don't get into these fantasy football discussions, save to make light of them.

To answer your response about your fantasy leagues (your term, not mine), I think what everyone knows that my comment is the fact that the Kerry Democratic-types DO NOT work in the South. If a candidate with his mentality and beliefs tried to run in LA he would be soundly defeated. The dem and rep gov candidates were conservative enough last go around to not have the differences normally associated with a race...that is a fluke it doesn't normally happen. Anyway, had the other democrat running been the nominee, the GOP would have won LA too!

Regarding my comment about not concerning yourself with gov races, thats not what I said. I said you have to put them together collectively. You have to look at a presidential trend as carrying more weight in the overall outcome. You may have a state that votes dem or rep for the last 30 years in the presidential race, and votes the other party in the last election for a state race.

I hope I answered your question regarding your football fantasies of a Mass. senator running for LA gov, even though I never said it. You did.