My 2008 prediction....

[opebo]

Whoever wins in 2004, the economy will still be booming in 2008.  That's already 'baked into the cake'.  So if Bush wins, his successor will have a good economy to run on, and if Kerry wins, he'll almost certainly get re-elected.  Kerry would be held back from wrecking the boom by the Republican congress.   This incipient boom is one of the biggest reasons I think a Bush loss in 2004 would be disasterous.  If Kerry were re-elected in 2008 he would allow the tax cuts to expire, which would probably kill the good times.. but by then it would be too late.

[opebo]

2004:

Kerry/Gephardt (D) - 50%, 270 EVs
Bush/Cheney (R) - 48%, 268 EVs

The Dems keep PA, MI, NM, and pick up MO, AZ, NH and NV.  Bush keeps OH and FL and picks up MN and WI.  The race comes down to IA and its 7 EVs.  Kerry takes it - on the first recount - in the state where his candidacy first took flight.

2008:

Kerry/Gephardt (D) - 50%, 294 EVs
Bush/Dole (R) - 41%, 244 EVs
Ventura/Barkley (I) - 9%, 0 EVs

The Bush family makes it 2 consecutive losses.  After surviving a tough primary battle with Giuliani and Rumsfeld, Jeb holds the polling lead throughout the year.  A strong independent run by Jesse Ventura gathers steam in the fall and cuts into Bush's lead, especially in the northern Great Plains states.

On election night, everyone is shocked as President Kerry wins a second term, taking such previously solid-repub states as ND, SD and NE.

2012

Dole/Owens (R) - 56%, 326 EVs
Clinton/Warner (D) - 43% 212 EVs

The Dems are not going to pick up Missouri or Arizona in 2004, in fact NV is a long shot.  I'll admit your seemingly reasoned analysis had me a little worried till I saw you predict the Dakotas and Nebraska to go Democrat in 2008!  When pigs fly that part of the country will go Democrat.
Also Jeb would never be chosen if GW had lost in 04, plus no one will remember who Jesse Ventura is in 2008.

[opebo]

The Dems are not going to pick up Missouri or Arizona in 2004, in fact NV is a long shot.

Opebo, You ALWAYS overestimate Bush's support.  The thing is, if bush will hold on, it will be because of Kerry, not because of bush.  If edwards was the nominee, Bush would have NO chance.  I mean, none.  Kerry is a weak candidate, can Bush, who is up to his lip in slime, might hang on by a thread.

I'm not so much overestimating Bush's support as assuming a high degree (at least 47.9%) of Republican support.  Its somewhat incidental that Bush is such a likable guy - the base of support is not about liking Bush, its about favoring the GOP and disfavouring the Democrats.  I think you're underestimating the numbers of people who find left-wingers like Kerry repugnant.  Certainly this applies in places like MO and AZ.

Edwards seems stronger than Kerry, but he has his weaknesses as well - trial lawyer (which most Americans realize are the scum of the earth), who is also rather ill-informed and shallow.  Amoral like Clinton, but lacking his intelligence.  I think Bush would defeat Edwards but it would be closer.    Bush/Kerry 290/248 compared with Bush/Edwards 273/265.  

Btw, what 'slime' are you talking about?

[opebo]

The Dems are not going to pick up Missouri or Arizona in 2004, in fact NV is a long shot.

Opebo, You ALWAYS overestimate Bush's support.  The thing is, if bush will hold on, it will be because of Kerry, not because of bush.  If edwards was the nominee, Bush would have NO chance.  I mean, none.  Kerry is a weak candidate, can Bush, who is up to his lip in slime, might hang on by a thread.

I'm not so much overestimating Bush's support as assuming a high degree (at least 47.9%) of Republican support.  Its somewhat incidental that Bush is such a likable guy - the base of support is not about liking Bush, its about favoring the GOP and disfavouring the Democrats.  I think you're underestimating the numbers of people who find left-wingers like Kerry repugnant.  Certainly this applies in places like MO and AZ.

Edwards seems stronger than Kerry, but he has his weaknesses as well - trial lawyer (which most Americans realize are the scum of the earth), who is also rather ill-informed and shallow.  Amoral like Clinton, but lacking his intelligence.  I think Bush would defeat Edwards but it would be closer.    Bush/Kerry 290/248 compared with Bush/Edwards 273/265.  

Btw, what 'slime' are you talking about?

I do think you overestimate the level of conservatism in the South-West, Bush only got around 50-51% in AZ, CO and NV.

What state(s) would Edwards get that Kerry wouldn't, I'm just curious?

I don't think I overestimate the conservatism of Republican voters in the Southwest - they're very conservative.  Its possible I'm out of date in assuming the're still a definitely majority of the voters, as the've been for so many years.  We'll see if all these new people swamp them.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards would win Arizona, Nevada, or Colorado, but because I think NM will be so close, I would shift it to Bush against Kerry, and to Edwards over Bush.  Other than that the only thing Edwards gains over Kerry is West Virginia - very likely, and Iowa, possibly.  Three states, and he'd still lose.   And not get a single Southern state unless you count WV as southern.

[opebo]

On the subject of the changing demographics of the South West I hear that the majority of Texans will be Spanish speaking by 2010... and it will be similar in the whole of the south west...interesting...

Scary stuff.

[opebo]

You guys are right, not a rat. More like a hag trying to look 25 instead of 43.


Even without the eyeshadow, it's still bad.


But the main point of the discussion, she will never become a candidate for President, and I highly doubt she'd win in the Senate.

Very ungallant posting.  Why not make fun of the appearance of Republican male candidates?