the biggest 'surprise' state

[WalterMitty]

Walter,

Oregon was very close in 2000, so why wouldn't it be this time? It's the same with Ohio and Florida.

for two big reasons i can think of off the top of my head.  the bad economy and employment situation in oregon.  and secondly, the war is extremely unpopular in places like portland and eugene.

those two factors, combined with the fact that nader may not be on the ballot, would lead one to conclude that kerry will win the state by a bigger margin than gore.  however, at this time, that doesnt appear to be the case.

Oregon always has a bad economy - it consistently underperforms the rest of the country.  The whole west coast is lousy like that.

that is an argument against excessive environmental regulation.  but i digress.

[Brandon]

Virginia, Louisiana, Indiana or Colorado could be surprises for Kerry.

Michigan, Maine or Minnesota could be a surprise for Bush.

I doubt any will happen, but that's why they'd be surprises, no?

Minnesota going to Bush would not be that big a surprise.  The Republicans won both the Senate seat and the governorship in 2002, so Bush could win there as well.  In Maine, Bush could win one electoral vote, since they pass them out by Congressional District there, but I agree that Bush winning all four of Maine's EV's would be a surprise.

[Fritz]

Minnesota going to Bush would not be that big a surprise.  The Republicans won both the Senate seat and the governorship in 2002, so Bush could win there as well.  

Everybody, repeat after me...

BUSH IS NOT GOING TO WIN IN MINNESOTA.


(and if he did, it would definitely be a surprise)

[ShapeShifter]

Minnesota going to Bush would not be that big a surprise.  The Republicans won both the Senate seat and the governorship in 2002, so Bush could win there as well.  

Everybody, repeat after me...

BUSH IS NOT GOING TO WIN IN MINNESOTA.


(and if he did, it would definitely be a surprise)

I don't think he is. I mean, even Carter won the state. However, maybe in a landslide, but recent polls don't show a landslide.

[Fritz]

I don't think he is. I mean, even Carter won the state. However, maybe in a landslide, but recent polls don't show a landslide.

I think you meant Mondale, not Carter.  Mondale's from here, so I named myself after him on this forum  

[ShapeShifter]

I don't think he is. I mean, even Carter won the state. However, maybe in a landslide, but recent polls don't show a landslide.

I think you meant Mondale, not Carter.  Mondale's from here, so I named myself after him on this forum  

Actually, both. When Carter lost badly to Reagan he only won 49 EV and Mn was one of them.

I know Mondale lost even worst. and makes more sense to include him instead.

[Lunar]

I don't think he is. I mean, even Carter won the state. However, maybe in a landslide, but recent polls don't show a landslide.

I think you meant Mondale, not Carter.  Mondale's from here, so I named myself after him on this forum  

1980 election with Carter:

[ShapeShifter]

I don't think he is. I mean, even Carter won the state. However, maybe in a landslide, but recent polls don't show a landslide.

I think you meant Mondale, not Carter.  Mondale's from here, so I named myself after him on this forum  

Mondale 1984

[Rococo4]

The biggest shocker on election night 2004 will be a Maine Bush victory.  I hope.

[© tweed]

The biggest shocker on election night 2004 will be a Maine Bush victory.  I hope.

To many Nader people for Kerry to lap up, Kerry wins.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Actually the biggest suprise may be California!

First, prior to 1992 California voted Republican in Presidential elections from 1952 - 1988 (1964 exception).

Second, the Republican candidates for Govenor in the recall election received far more votes than the Democrat candidates.

Third, the party registration in California is significantly better for the Republicans in that state than was the case in 2000.

Fourth, the liberal media really went nuts during the recall election calling the voters nuts for wanting to recall Davis.  This badly undermined their credibility with the voters there.  As the liberal media is a major prop of the Kerry campaign, this is bad news for Kerry.

Fifth, it seems likely that the California economy will improve in the next six months even faster than the national average.

Sixth, while the California electorate tends to be socially more liberal than the nation, it has a long record of dislike for tax increases.

[Gustaf]

Actually the biggest suprise may be California!

First, prior to 1992 California voted Republican in Presidential elections from 1952 - 1988 (1964 exception).

Second, the Republican candidates for Govenor in the recall election received far more votes than the Democrat candidates.

Third, the party registration in California is significantly better for the Republicans in that state than was the case in 2000.

Fourth, the liberal media really went nuts during the recall election calling the voters nuts for wanting to recall Davis.  This badly undermined their credibility with the voters there.  As the liberal media is a major prop of the Kerry campaign, this is bad news for Kerry.

Fifth, it seems likely that the California economy will improve in the next six months even faster than the national average.

Sixth, while the California electorate tends to be socially more liberal than the nation, it has a long record of dislike for tax increases.

Seventh, all poll consistently show Kerry clearly ahead.

Eigth, they'll need that speedy recovery since they're well below national average in terms of getting hit by the economic down-turn.

Ninth, the fact that CA once was Republican holds little value. From 1892 to 1948 Texas voted Democratically, usually by a margin of 20% or so, inevery election except 1928. That doesn't change the fact that Bush won it by 20% last time and will do so again.  

[ShapeShifter]

Actually the biggest suprise may be California!

First, prior to 1992 California voted Republican in Presidential elections from 1952 - 1988 (1964 exception).

Second, the Republican candidates for Govenor in the recall election received far more votes than the Democrat candidates.

Third, the party registration in California is significantly better for the Republicans in that state than was the case in 2000.

Fourth, the liberal media really went nuts during the recall election calling the voters nuts for wanting to recall Davis.  This badly undermined their credibility with the voters there.  As the liberal media is a major prop of the Kerry campaign, this is bad news for Kerry.

Fifth, it seems likely that the California economy will improve in the next six months even faster than the national average.

Sixth, while the California electorate tends to be socially more liberal than the nation, it has a long record of dislike for tax increases.

Keep dreaming. I hope Bush waste his money in California. Let him.

[ilikeverin]

Minnesota going to Bush would not be that big a surprise.  The Republicans won both the Senate seat and the governorship in 2002, so Bush could win there as well.  

Everybody, repeat after me...

BUSH IS NOT GOING TO WIN IN MINNESOTA.


(and if he did, it would definitely be a surprise)

True dat.

And no one seems to realise it

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf,

First, the polls (Field, LA Times, etc.) have consistently shown a liberal/Democrat bias.  The bias tends to reduce as elections approach.

Second, I think you meant to say that California's economy suffered more than the national econoy.  This is in part from the major components of that economy which are poised for a major recovery.

Third, in addition to the California Presidential election history which I cited, I noted the recent trends in voter registration and the recall election.

Fourth, while Texas did vote for Democrat candidates for President in the first half of the twentieth century, those familiar with the voting practices of texas would not suggest if voted democratically (south Texas was notorious for vote fraud).

[angus]

Second, I think you meant to say that California's economy suffered more than the national econoy.  This is in part from the major components of that economy which are poised for a major recovery.

Third, in addition to the California Presidential election history which I cited, I noted the recent trends in voter registration and the recall election.

good points.  Check out the March issue of California Journal.

[Reaganfan]

California narrowly going to Bush. That's a shock.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Carl... do you think that the GOP cheated in AL and GA in 2002?
Checking your intellectual honesty

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

First, the polls (Field, LA Times, etc.) have consistently shown a liberal/Democrat bias.  The bias tends to reduce as elections approach.

Second, I think you meant to say that California's economy suffered more than the national econoy.  This is in part from the major components of that economy which are poised for a major recovery.

Third, in addition to the California Presidential election history which I cited, I noted the recent trends in voter registration and the recall election.

Fourth, while Texas did vote for Democrat candidates for President in the first half of the twentieth century, those familiar with the voting practices of texas would not suggest if voted democratically (south Texas was notorious for vote fraud).

OK, I'm gonna stop the silly numbering of arguments now, if it's OK with you...

The liberal bias of Rasmussen Reports was admittedly a fact that I wasn't aware of. I have no idea how biased the Public Policy Institute is. And I moreover would like to see some proof of this alleged liberal bias.

I think that most people would agree that Texas was Democratic for about a 100 years, voter fraud or not...also whether it was due to fraud or not is completely irrelevant to the point.

Finally, I only refuted those of your points that I saw a need to refute at a first glance. Those that I didn't have a problem with I didn't mention.

[angus]

OK, I'm gonna stop the silly numbering of arguments now, if it's OK with you...

The liberal bias of Rasmussen Reports was admittedly a fact that I wasn't aware of. I have no idea how biased the Public Policy Institute is. And I moreover would like to see some proof of this alleged liberal bias.

I think that most people would agree that Texas was Democratic for about a 100 years, voter fraud or not...also whether it was due to fraud or not is completely irrelevant to the point.

Johnson was a cheat and probably the killer of Kennedy.  But hey, he's still Al Sharpton's favorite.  I gotta admit that among leftist leaders, he's one of my favorites too.

[Gustaf]

OK, I'm gonna stop the silly numbering of arguments now, if it's OK with you...

The liberal bias of Rasmussen Reports was admittedly a fact that I wasn't aware of. I have no idea how biased the Public Policy Institute is. And I moreover would like to see some proof of this alleged liberal bias.

I think that most people would agree that Texas was Democratic for about a 100 years, voter fraud or not...also whether it was due to fraud or not is completely irrelevant to the point.

Johnson was a cheat and probably the killer of Kennedy.  But hey, he's still Al Sharpton's favorite.  I gotta admit that among leftist leaders, he's one of my favorites too.

Sure, still is completely irrelvant to the point I was making.

[bgwah]

I don't think Bush will win Oregon and I DEFINATELY don't think he'll win Washington. The Northwest is safe for the dems.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

There is no chance of California going to Bush. The recall election is meaningless. What isn't meaningless is that Davis won reelection over a conservative candidate despite being more unpopular than Nixon at his lowest point. That shows how solid the state is. So the GOP found a popular movie star who was a registered Republican but rather liberal and he won. Big whoop. That's like saying Kerry has a chance at Kansas because they elected a relatively liberal Democratic governor.

Minnesota is not going to Bush either. I don't know why people make such a big deal about two elections where both Republicans didn't even get 50%. Not a single Republican in Minnesota has gotten over 50%, the only statewide office holder to do so is Democratic AG Mike Hatch. Pawlenty and Coleman's victories were flukes, and signs of nothing.

[angus]

I have Marlboro, Copenhagen, and The Patch all going at the same time.  Pretty impresive nicotine addiction.  Who needs killers, when we have ourselves?

Yes, gustaf, you're right, of course.  What party is popular today doesn't reflect 50 years ago or 50 years from now.  That's why you should look at political cultures, as opposed to political parties.  I've been saying that quite a bit on this forum, as I'm sure you've noticed.  Those don't change, but parties do.  Having two parties superimposed on three political cultures is confusing, but ultimately forces parties to evolve, so it's fun, if you're a political junkie.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

political cultures do change. New Jersey used to be considered the most conservative state in the country.