2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[afleitch]

Although I am not a fan of Howard Dean, and i'm Britsih to boot, writing off his chances in the south is a dangerous trap. Disregarding his Condederate flag statement, he may tap into disgruntled southern voters both black and white if he plays his cards right. He is a supporter of gun ownership, which could appeal to many (Not that I am trying to make any assumptions of gun ownership based on state) A southern running mate would also help Dean. If he ran with Clarke, Arkansas would fall to the Democrats, not only because of Clarke, but because of an inbuilt Clinton-era political mechanism which could be put into effect. Louisiana is also a likely target state especially when looking at the recent gubernatorial race. I feel Florida, despite the closeness of 2000, is out of the Dems reach in 2004, as are Georgia and Tennessee. Kentucky could be persuaded and i wouldn't rule out North and South Carolina. North Carolina would be a target if John Edwards can make a good shot at the nomination or if he is selected as Dean's or any other candidates running mate. The 'high' war veteran concentration in South Carolina could also see this state as a close call if Wesley Clarke is involved, but it is likely to remain Republican. Gains in the south are needed by the Dems if they are in danger of loosing ground in northern states such as Oregon, Maine and Minnesota.

[afleitch]

Here's something to play with. Say that history was different. Say that for some unknown reason (however farfetched!) Carter defeats Reagan in 1980. Who would be up for election in 1984 and how would history have progessed presidentially since then? I have a feeling Mondale would have been up for election in 1984, after being veep for 8 years, what about the Republicans? What about 88? Let the imagination run riot!

[afleitch]

As a citizen of the UK, the 2004 election is importnant to me because the USA has a lot of influence. Decisions made by Bush for instance on the US economy, rebound not only on Wall Street but in London too. From my albeit limited experience, most Brits prefer the Democratic candidate, regardless of whether they are Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters themselves. The British public hate incompitent, 'folksy' politicians usually, so there was a strong dislike of George Bush even before the events of Iraq. I can remember most people I talked to thought highly of Clinton and wanted Gore to win in 2000. While I supported Bush's stance on Iraq (more to do with Tony Blair's assurances rather than Bush's), I hope he is defeated in 2004.

[afleitch]

Yes, you are right. Blair is a shoe-in come 2005/6. Blair does have a strong working relationship with Bush, but ideologically they clash. Blair and Clinton saw eye to eye on far more things than Blair and Bush do, and I would imagine that if a Democrat is elected in 2004, they will have just as strong a relationship. I have a sneaking suspicion that Blair wouldn't mind if Bush lost...as long as it's not to Dean!

[afleitch]

Most of you are probably aware of the 31-31-31 theory. For the first time since it was analysed, America is split into three even camps of Dems, Reps and Inds. That 31% who hold no affiliation are those who will decide the election. Theres no point in either party trying to target the 31% in their own camp, those votes are in the bag. This trend should lead to a more 'centrist' political campaign. Deans campaign for one, is skewed in favour of those he knows are going to vote for him anyway. This is a big mistake. Several months for now it will be down to Dean versus one other candidate. Because the 'anti-Dean' vote is so split between Clark, Lieberman Edwards and Kerry (purposely ignoring the other 3 candidates) I think the odds are still against Dean even at this stage.

[afleitch]

Enough with the pyramids!

[afleitch]

I think we can number crunch all we want, but voter turnout will seriously effect the outcome. Regardless of whether or not Dean wins the Democratic nomination, he has energised a large portion of the liberal leaning electorate, who in the past rarely turned out to vote. A sustained youth/minority vote drive should be more successful this time around than in the recent past. One aspect many people over look is how much many Democratic voters WANT BUSH OUT, there is a thirst for gaining back the White House. Yes Howard Dean and authorist Michael Moore (who is a Clark backer) may be behind this, which doesn't make the DNC entirely comfortable, but it can be used effectively. If the turnout increases by even a handful of percent, and most of those votes go to the Demc, on state wide levels this could produce suprising results.

[afleitch]

There are indeed many wings of Labour, just are there are many different wings of the Democratic party (yes, even as wierd as LaRouche!) Labour and the Democrats fit neatly into the political spectrum as it exists today. Both parties 'exchange' representatives to shadow election campaigns, in fact Labour's Peter Mandelson is helping co-ordinate this years effort I believe. And I hope it is a success. Clinton advisors helped Labour get the right 'angle' for their spectacular 1997 campaign and this year they're returning the favour. It's just a shame that Tony Blair can't officially back the Democratic candidate, but I'm sure deep down he holds high opinions of Wesley Clark and other moderate Dems. The Neo-Cons can choke on that one!

[afleitch]

This election will be close. Regardless of his successes and failures, there are many people who simply want Bush out, no matter how Iraq or the economy is doing, many of whom did not vote at all last time round. If they come out to vote in some key states then they could swing it in the Dems favour. I have the feeling that on the election night, it will be the Western states that will be close and being the last to vote it will be exciting!

[afleitch]

Watching this whole drama unfolding is really interesting. Howrd Dean was the person Democrats wanted to be their candidate, John Kerry is the person they (mostly) want to be their President. Howard Dean captivated so many, but he simply cannot challenge Bush, and since the New Year that has dawned on many. One good result however, is that the turnout for the primaries and caucuses have been exceptionally high, showing us that Democrats and many Independents are HUNGRY for change. They want Bush out. And that is a good thing to remember come November! The press in the UK from tabloid to broadsheet are following this race closely. John Kerry go for it!

[afleitch]

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!

[afleitch]

I've noticed that since the start of 'Kerrymania' the prediction page has seen more confident Democratic wins, and even the Republican wins have been scaled down. I hope I don't have to eat my hat, but those 'Bush wins everything but Vermont' predictions from before the new year seem pretty ridiculous now! My own predictions are biased i'll admit. Oh and hows about a 'final prediction' topic come November where the most accurate gets a free pat on the back! Come to mention it, did anyone here predict 2000 pretty much spot on? Right down to EV's? Raise your hands now. It would be nice to hear from you!

[afleitch]

As much as I despise Roy Moore...run! Suck a few percent from Bush so the Dems can take Florida, Louisiana and so on...gosh its such a BRILLIANT plan!! Gimme water!

[afleitch]

I find it disturbing to read Republicans on this board try to explain away the national debt of the USA, with phrases such as 'it's not a problem' and even more that the Clinton recovery was 'too much too fast.' Get realistic. The growth in jobs in February was so low it couldn't keep up with the growth in the working population, never mind alieviating the existing unemployed. Bush has lost more jobs than Herbert Hoover, and as one economist put it quite simply; 'Yuck' The stockmarket is lumbering along and the value of the Dollar has fallen so much that in the long trend, soon the Euro will be worth more than the Dollar! Yes the economy is better than it was a year ago, but it is far far worse than it was on the day Clinton left office. And all the Republicans can shout about is Clinton's morality! It would almost be excusable if this was part of a worldwide economic downturn, but no. The economy of Japan is gathering speed, as is that of China. The UK's economy is now into its 11th year of sustained growth, it's unemployment rate is the lowest for almost 30 years and we can still afford to pump billions into education and healthcare. Ross Perot where are you now!

[afleitch]

I hope to visit the US too. I'll head to NY, then New England before heading into Canada! Though I really should pay those relatives in San Diego a visit...