Out on a limb

[Gustaf]

It remains to be seen.  The country was polarized in 1972, but Nixon won by a large margin.

It depends on just how numerous Bush's enemies are, and how badly the Democratic nominee stumbles, or doesn't stumble.

This election will be a referendum on the president, as most re-election campaigns are.  His enemies are very vocal, and many filled with hate, but traditionally in American politics, this repels swing voters.  The moveon.org ads comparing Bush to Hitler are a perfect example of something that repels the typical voter.

The Democrats are descending into negativity and hate, and that could really help Bush, but time will tell.  I tend to think that the president's political team is downplaying its election prospects in order to fire up its own supporters.

Yes, but McGovern got chrushed. I was referring to Zorkpolitics who had Bush winning with a margin of only 5%, not the 20% or so, that McGovern lost by.

That can still translate into a big EC victory, but only if the voters are evenly spread out, which they are not, since the country is so polarized. See what I mean now?

[StevenNick]

Its still a long way until Nov., but based on an improving economy I’ll make the following predictions:
Whitehouse:
Bush 52% Dean 47%, Bush wins all the states from 2000 plus NM, MN, IA, WI, and OR and maybe ME, PA, WA, MI

Senate:
Republicans lose IL, keep AK (close) and OK (easy) then pick up  4 of the 5 Southern open seats: NC, SC, FL, GA, but lose LA.  I think the big surprise will be how many Democratic incumbents lose: SD, WA, WI, NV all go Republican, CA is close but Boxer wins.  The net 7 seat gain for the Republicans is not only because Bush wins, but because Bush spends much of his $200 million “primary funds” to organize the grass roots, registering up to 3 million new GOP voters, and planning for the 72 hr GOTV.  All of this will benefit down ticket races.  In addition, after Bush reaches his $200 million in March, he will raise another $100 million for the key Senate and House races.

House:
Here I expect the Republicans to make fewer gains, pick up only 4 seats.  Redistricting has become a massive incumbency protection plan, only 34 candidates won by less than a 10% margin in 2000.  12 of those were first time winners and more likely to expand their margin than lose (only 4 incumbents lost in the 2002 general election, and those were in cases where redistricting was rigged against them).   So maybe the Republican get a net 1.  Of course it now looks like they’ll also pick up 5 or so seats in TX.  The real action is, always in open seats, so far the Republicans are at a disadvantage with 15 open seats to the 7 for the Democrats, resulting in net gain of 2 for the Democrats.  

Wouldn't it be hard to win all of that with a margin of only 5%, considering the fact that the country is so polarized?

Who says the country is so polarized?  I really don't see that it is.  There is always going to be a minority of members of whatever political party is not in power that objects strenuously to administration in power.  That does not mean that the country is divided.  The fact is, republicans have made uniform gains across the country because of the wide-spread popularity of the current president.  Yes, there is the angry, liberal base of the democratic party that hates GWB.  That sentiment is not shared by the country as a whole.  In fact, that sentiment may not even be shared by the majority of the democratic party.

I think anyone who thinks the country is divided, or is at least more divided than it was four years ago, should look at the recent Pew Research poll on voter identification in various electorally important states.  The poll showed democratic ID at historic lows.  White men are leaving that party in droves.  Conversely, republicans are making gains everywhere.  Some other polls have even showed republicans having gained the nationwide lead in voter ID for the first time since the New Deal era.  It looks as though democratic representation in the U.S. House of Representatives may soon be pushed down into the high one-hundreds for the first time since 1948.

This country is far less divided than it was four years ago.  In fact, I think the country hasn't been this politically united since Ronald Reagan left office in 1989.

[Gustaf]

Its still a long way until Nov., but based on an improving economy I’ll make the following predictions:
Whitehouse:
Bush 52% Dean 47%, Bush wins all the states from 2000 plus NM, MN, IA, WI, and OR and maybe ME, PA, WA, MI

Senate:
Republicans lose IL, keep AK (close) and OK (easy) then pick up  4 of the 5 Southern open seats: NC, SC, FL, GA, but lose LA.  I think the big surprise will be how many Democratic incumbents lose: SD, WA, WI, NV all go Republican, CA is close but Boxer wins.  The net 7 seat gain for the Republicans is not only because Bush wins, but because Bush spends much of his $200 million “primary funds” to organize the grass roots, registering up to 3 million new GOP voters, and planning for the 72 hr GOTV.  All of this will benefit down ticket races.  In addition, after Bush reaches his $200 million in March, he will raise another $100 million for the key Senate and House races.

House:
Here I expect the Republicans to make fewer gains, pick up only 4 seats.  Redistricting has become a massive incumbency protection plan, only 34 candidates won by less than a 10% margin in 2000.  12 of those were first time winners and more likely to expand their margin than lose (only 4 incumbents lost in the 2002 general election, and those were in cases where redistricting was rigged against them).   So maybe the Republican get a net 1.  Of course it now looks like they’ll also pick up 5 or so seats in TX.  The real action is, always in open seats, so far the Republicans are at a disadvantage with 15 open seats to the 7 for the Democrats, resulting in net gain of 2 for the Democrats.  

Wouldn't it be hard to win all of that with a margin of only 5%, considering the fact that the country is so polarized?

Who says the country is so polarized?  I really don't see that it is.  There is always going to be a minority of members of whatever political party is not in power that objects strenuously to administration in power.  That does not mean that the country is divided.  The fact is, republicans have made uniform gains across the country because of the wide-spread popularity of the current president.  Yes, there is the angry, liberal base of the democratic party that hates GWB.  That sentiment is not shared by the country as a whole.  In fact, that sentiment may not even be shared by the majority of the democratic party.

I think anyone who thinks the country is divided, or is at least more divided than it was four years ago, should look at the recent Pew Research poll on voter identification in various electorally important states.  The poll showed democratic ID at historic lows.  White men are leaving that party in droves.  Conversely, republicans are making gains everywhere.  Some other polls have even showed republicans having gained the nationwide lead in voter ID for the first time since the New Deal era.  It looks as though democratic representation in the U.S. House of Representatives may soon be pushed down into the high one-hundreds for the first time since 1948.

This country is far less divided than it was four years ago.  In fact, I think the country hasn't been this politically united since Ronald Reagan left office in 1989.

A country can be polarized even though one party has a lear majority, I thought of it more as the "hate-level" than anything else.

I was referring to geographical polarization rather than anything else, basically that certain states are Dem enough to go Dem even if Bush wins big, making the probability of a McGovernstyled landslide lower.

[StevenNick]

A country can be polarized even though one party has a lear majority, I thought of it more as the "hate-level" than anything else.

I was referring to geographical polarization rather than anything else, basically that certain states are Dem enough to go Dem even if Bush wins big, making the probability of a McGovernstyled landslide lower.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, you're right about that.  I've just seen all kinds of political commentators and analysts on TV talking about how close the election is going to be because we're such a polarized nation and I just don't see that there's much evidence to support that.  But to the extent that there is a significant minority--though still vastly outnumbered--who hates Bush.  In that sense, we are more polarized than we have been since Richard Nixon.  But we are not evenly divided.

[jravnsbo]

I agree.  There are many Democrats organizing hoping to stop dean first.  He seems to be growing about as hated as Bush among many democrats.

A country can be polarized even though one party has a lear majority, I thought of it more as the "hate-level" than anything else.

I was referring to geographical polarization rather than anything else, basically that certain states are Dem enough to go Dem even if Bush wins big, making the probability of a McGovernstyled landslide lower.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, you're right about that.  I've just seen all kinds of political commentators and analysts on TV talking about how close the election is going to be because we're such a polarized nation and I just don't see that there's much evidence to support that.  But to the extent that there is a significant minority--though still vastly outnumbered--who hates Bush.  In that sense, we are more polarized than we have been since Richard Nixon.  But we are not evenly divided.

[NorthernDog]

Has anyone seen a poll from one of the big states like NY, CA, or MI?  It'd be interesting to see if Bush's favorability is close to 50% in any of the states he lost by a wide margin.  Here in MN the local paper has not published a poll on Bush for a very long time, which leads me to believe he is doing well in the Gopher state.

[zorkpolitics]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be hard to win all of that with a margin of only 5%, considering the fact that the country is so polarized?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The additional states I think Bush would win he lost by less than 6% in 2000.  I also don't think Bush will do 5% better everywhere.  Given the focused voter registration/GOTV effort targeted to the close states from 2000, I give him the advantage in those states.  By contrast Dean might pile up some pretty huge margins in NY, NJ, CT, IL and CA, while Bush's large 2000 margin in TX may drop a bit thus keeping Dean within 5% of Bush nationally in popular vote while he crushes Dean in EV.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah I think the problem is more with the ideological polarization of the two parties. There has not been an ideological divide between the two parties this big since William Jennings Bryant's Cross of Gold speech in 1896. Unfortunately, liberalism, the ideology of compassion, is on the losing end of the stick here. I think this is more unfortunate than any political party winning over another, because political parties usually just represent interest groups, whereas ideologies represent ways of going about things.

[English]

Bush seems to have an advantage in that the GOP spreads it's vote more effectively than the Democrats. It's perfectly possible that the Democrats could win the popular vote, but lose the election by a wide margin. This will be the case if the Democrats pile up huge majorities in NY, CA and IL. This is what used to happen to the Labour party in the 1980's. i.e The few seats they did win, were won by massive majorities, giving the Tories lots and lots of marginals.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't it be hard to win all of that with a margin of only 5%, considering the fact that the country is so polarized?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The additional states I think Bush would win he lost by less than 6% in 2000.  I also don't think Bush will do 5% better everywhere.  Given the focused voter registration/GOTV effort targeted to the close states from 2000, I give him the advantage in those states.  By contrast Dean might pile up some pretty huge margins in NY, NJ, CT, IL and CA, while Bush's large 2000 margin in TX may drop a bit thus keeping Dean within 5% of Bush nationally in popular vote while he crushes Dean in EV.

OK, then I understand what you mean. Not sure if you're right, but you could be.

[NorthernDog]

Bush seems to have an advantage in that the GOP spreads it's vote more effectively than the Democrats.

They aren't spreading their votes, they are appealing to a wider range of people who inhabit a wider range of states.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Once again, Daschle will not lose.  Thune lost to Johnson by 500 votes or so, and the only thing that saved Johnson was Dashcle's support.  Thune *should* run for SD's open House seat, as he would have a far greater chance at winning that.

President: Bush defeats Dean about 51-47%, with the toher third candidates splitting hte vote.  Bush picks up Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, and New Mexico.  That calculates into a 334-204 Bush win.  But after Bush make a "pig's ear" of it in his second term, the Republicans will have to go moderate with a Giuliani or McCain candidacy.

GOP makes moderate gains in Gubernatorial, Senate, and house races.

Again, what would your predictions/percentages be for a Bush v. Clark campaign? I think the figures would be a lot closer. And how on earth do you think Bush will win Michigan? His repeal of the Steel Tariffs would prevent Michigan from giving Bush their state.

[jravnsbo]

Well repeal of the steel tariffs actually HELPS Michigan.  They do not produce as much steel as they buy and consume a lot of steel, ie the auto industry for a big one.

Once again, Daschle will not lose.  Thune lost to Johnson by 500 votes or so, and the only thing that saved Johnson was Dashcle's support.  Thune *should* run for SD's open House seat, as he would have a far greater chance at winning that.

President: Bush defeats Dean about 51-47%, with the toher third candidates splitting hte vote.  Bush picks up Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, and New Mexico.  That calculates into a 334-204 Bush win.  But after Bush make a "pig's ear" of it in his second term, the Republicans will have to go moderate with a Giuliani or McCain candidacy.

GOP makes moderate gains in Gubernatorial, Senate, and house races.

Again, what would your predictions/percentages be for a Bush v. Clark campaign? I think the figures would be a lot closer. And how on earth do you think Bush will win Michigan? His repeal of the Steel Tariffs would prevent Michigan from giving Bush their state.

[StevenNick]

Again, what would your predictions/percentages be for a Bush v. Clark campaign? I think the figures would be a lot closer. And how on earth do you think Bush will win Michigan? His repeal of the Steel Tariffs would prevent Michigan from giving Bush their state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think a Clark-Bush matchup would be very close at all.  I don't think Bush would win by quite the same margin as he would against Dean, but just because Clark has the title of General doesn't suddenly make him electable.  Clark, unfortunatley, has the same problem as Dean:  he can't keep his mouth shut.  He seems to have a real problem with telling the truth.  And has anyone noticed his refusal to ever give a straight answer to any question that any reporter has ever asked him.  In fact, Clark has said things that are more evasive, outrageous, and down-right stupid than anything Dean has said thusfar in the campaign.

I think in a Bush-Clark race Bush wins 53% -- 45% with the other 2% going to various third-party candidates.  I think Bush would win thirty-five to forty states.

[© tweed]

Clark Bush is probably 50-48% or so.

[jravnsbo]

Bush would still be favored and is ahead in fact in all polls in head to head vs clark.

Clark Bush is probably 50-48% or so.

[Inmate Trump]

Bush would still be favored and is ahead in fact in all polls in head to head vs clark.

Yea.

Actually, in a few polls that I've seen, Dean does best against Bush than ALL the other candidates.  They all still lose to Bush, but Dean does best...according to some polls, anyway.

[© tweed]

DEAL.

Safest seat-Bennet in Utah.

I would give 5% since Thune would be the underdog.

Which do you see as the safest senate seat coming up in 2004?  Schumer in NY?

Okay, Jravnsbo...bumping this thread up so I can rub it in your face when Daschle is re-elected.

[King]

DEAL.

Safest seat-Bennet in Utah.

I would give 5% since Thune would be the underdog.

Which do you see as the safest senate seat coming up in 2004?  Schumer in NY?

No, it was Crapo in Idaho.  99% of the vote!!!!

[King]

Okay, Jravnsbo...bumping this thread up so I can rub it in your face when Daschle is re-elected.

haha!

[Erc]

Turns out he was only truly wrong about his home state (and even then, only very wrong about two of them).

Well, that, and Dean winning the nomination.