Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2019, 05:01:49 am
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 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 813985 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« on: December 12, 2003, 11:10:04 pm »

I'll throw in a prediction of my own.  This one is for a race between Bush and Dean.  I think that Bush will manage to retain every state that he won in 2000.  In, addition, he will pick up Minnisota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maine and perhapesd Washinton and Michigan.  My feeling is that even with Arnold, there won't be a Republican gain in California.  However, Arnold's presence and stumping for Bush will, I predict cause a rise in Bush's numbers in that, state, at least for a while, causing the Democrats to spend money their and considering thier already streached resources after a hard fought primary, that's something that will become a nessesary evil for them (if you recall, Gore didn't spend a dime in California in 2000).  So Bush will be able to pick up several states that he lost in 2000, even against a Dick Gephart or Joe Liebermann, let alone Howard Dean.

Bush won't carry California, but in the end, it will make a big difference in the election.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2004, 11:13:04 pm »

Don't forget about Minn.  It could very easily go Bush with a regular Democrat running, let alone Dean.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2004, 11:58:27 pm »

Has anyone paid attention to the 2003 elections?  Louisiana and Pa being more Dem. and Kentucky and Miss. going Rep?  What was the difference?  In Pa., more minority voters in the cities did come out, but that is only part of the story.  Lancaster, York, Adams, Dauphin - combined equals Philly - voted more Rep. than ever.  The other small cities and the rural industrial areas voted more Dem than ever.  These areas have not gained new voters, nor the Reps. lost votes.  Inactive Dems. came out this year to boost Dem. totals.  These blue collar voters came to vote for an unashamedly pro-choice, liberal Democrat in Baer.  They are not conservative, they will vote for a real Dem or not vote at all.  Southern Evangelicals have become more and more of a Rep. certainty (a danger to them in itself), but the rural blue collar Catholic areas of Ohio, Pa., and Michigan do not have new Rep. votes, only many Dems. who just don't vote.  They come out for the genuine article.  (Baer is not Catholic, so it wasn't that.)  If their turnout is decent, Ohio is Dem in 2004.  That is just enough, is it not?

Hi! Welcome to the forum.  Luisiana has a long tradition of going Dem. in state-wide races, so I don't see any big revelation there.  As for Ohio, I would arguee you there.  Ohio has a long Republican tradiotion and many former Dems now vote Rep.  As for PA, we are one of the weirdest states in the country when it comes to elections, so who knows?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2004, 02:46:20 am »

I have finally posted my map.  Thanks for making it easier, Dave.  Smiley
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2004, 06:33:26 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.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2004, 10:16:52 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.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.

Eh...what is that last part supposed to mean? Bush is a conservative who would lose in a landslide if it wasn't for the annoying fact there are so many conservative voters! In fact, any candidate would lose in a landslide if they didn't have voters who shared their opinion! Smiley

What I meant is that there is such a high concentration of far left voters in the NE and Pacific West that those states are sure to go for Dean and will probably be the only states to go to Dean.  Bush's support is msuch more spread out throughout the country.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2004, 02:16:47 pm »

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

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2004, 02:24:32 pm »

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

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2004, 02:26:47 pm »

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

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2004, 12:22:00 am »

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

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?

My point. Let's take an example. I don't remember the American tax level, so I'll use other countries. In the UK, the overall taxation is 37% of GDP. In Sweden it is 53% of GDP. If a British party advocated higher taxes and a Swedish party advocated lower taxes, the Swedish party might be viewed as further to the right. However, if the Swedish party wants to cut taxes to, say 50% of GDP, and the British party wants to raise them to 40% of GDP, the Swedish party is still favouring a more leftist society. All I was saying is that this should be kept in mind when these comparisons are made. Look at where you're headed, not just the direction.  

I see what you are saying.  I guess that I am looking more at "immediatly" liberal than "overall" Liberal, if you know what I mean.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2004, 02:04:26 am »

I made a major change to my map when it comes to New York.  I have a hunch.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2004, 06:37:59 pm »

which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.

Please excuse me while I roll on the floor in laughter.  Dean could never win PA.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2004, 11:19:28 pm »

I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.

Dean could never win in Pittsburgh.  He would get some union support, but he is so liberal on social issues that they would ride him out of town on a rail.  You need to win at least two of the three regions in PA to win the state and Dean could never pull it.  He would win around Philadelphia, but he would get trounched in the T and Pittsburgh.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2004, 11:14:42 am »

This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at the 2004 Prediction page.  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)-- Howard Dean has moved out to at least a 2-1 lead in New York over his chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, while President Bush's popularity has rebounded in the heavily Democratic state, a statewide poll reported Tuesday.

The poll, from Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, had the former Vermont governor favored by 26% of Democratic voters surveyed with Sen. Joseph Lieberman of neighboring Connecticut at 12% and retired Gen. Wesley Clark backed by 10% of the Democrats. None of the other contenders cracked double digits in the new poll. Twenty-six percent of Democrats said they were undecided.

An October poll from Marist had Dean leading Lieberman, 18% to 16%, with Clark at 14% among New York Democrats.

But the new poll also found that Republican Bush appears to be a viable option for New York voters in a state where Democrats have a 5-3 enrollment advantage over Republicans. Among all registered New York voters sampled, 34% said they would definitely vote for the incumbent president in this year's election while 36% said they would definitely vote against him. Thirty percent were undecided.

A September poll from the Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based institute had found 32% of voters planned to vote for Bush and 48% planned to vote against him.

The improvement for Bush's standing in New York was also evident in his job approval rating -- 52% in the new poll and 44% in the September poll.

Republican Gov. George Pataki has boasted that Bush will carry New York in this year's election, a feat not accomplished by a Republican in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan did it in 1980 and 1984.

The telephone poll of 617 registered voters was conducted Jan. 6-7 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The Democratic results, based on a sampling of 544 party members, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.


Like I said, I have a feeling that if Dean is the nominee, Bush could win New York.  Granted, this is just short on an absolutly best case senario, but it could happen.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2004, 12:34:50 pm »

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2004, 10:28:25 pm »

I'm not making any more predictions until I am have some idea of who the Dem. nominee is going to be.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2004, 11:25:26 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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2004, 07:22:00 pm »

he was against the Vietnam War, so many Vets don't like that.  He would still take a good chunk of the veteran vote in the general.

Yeah, but it would be the same chunk that the Dems always get so it wouldn't make much difference.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2004, 07:23:51 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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2004, 08:29:22 pm »

So did Kerry, and Gephardt voted for the 87B.

Exactly.  So, why not support Gepardt (when he was still in it) or Liebermann then?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2004, 12:29:50 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!

Do you think of that as a good thing?

I think he was joking in that last part.  I hope he was joking on that last part.  He has a point though.  The only state where the Muslims are going to have a measurible affect on the election is Michigan.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #21 on: February 10, 2004, 12:37:04 pm »

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.
Ohio has one fof the highest muslim populations in the USA, also, which will swing the state to Bush.  Also, Gov. Taft is VERY unpopular in Ohio, a Republican.  I don't see how anything going on helps the GOP in Ohio.

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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #22 on: February 10, 2004, 04:01:10 pm »

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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #23 on: February 10, 2004, 04:10:59 pm »

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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,602
Ukraine


« Reply #24 on: February 10, 2004, 08:41:12 pm »
« Edited: February 10, 2004, 08:42:40 pm by supersoulty »

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.
I could see 95% of people doing it if they felt their re-election hopes were next to dead without it, or their re-election hopes were 100% if they faked it.  Obvious, if the capture of UBL is announced on 11/1/04, it will look fake, but if it announce in September, it may not.

You have a really low opinion of humanity in general then.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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