2004 Democratic Primary

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Something to remember is Mississippi's majority law:

If no candidate gets 50% +1, the election goes to the State House.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Harris isn't a fool... If you think Howard has baggage...

Nice look of shock on his face.
Was it taken when his old riding of Nipissing went red

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No...no... There are plenty of of 'em left...
Problem for the Dems is that they only seem to vote Democrat at state and local level...

[English]

I agree the loss of Enfield Southgate was inevitable. It may have been theoretically 'safer' than places like Ludlow, however it is a London seat and therefore susceptible to much larger swings. Another London seat, Harrow West suffered an even greater swing than southgate! Labour overturned a majority of something like 17,000!
As for Portillo, I believe he would make a fantastic PM. Even his name shouts 'Prime Minister'! He would also do well with the voters, he is suave, sophisticated, well-spoken and cultured. He would definately appeal to voters in their 20's/30's. Howard is a disaster for the Tories, the only people he will appeal to are die-hard tory voters, which makes him a pretty stupid choice! He was perhaps the most hated politician of the Major years, quite how they think he will appeal to the centre ground I don't know.

[English]

I'll emigrate if David Blunkett becomes PM.

Agree absolutely. David Blunkett would be by far the worse choice. Even a Blunkett chancellor would be a scary prospect.  I actually quite admire Cook, however he would be a disaster in the polls. Like it or not, image is important and Cook has about the worst image in the Labour Party.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It may have been inevitible... but it was still great!

Portillo has re-invented himself, he had to unless he wanted the Tories to lose Kensignton and Chelsea(O.K maybe not...)

Howard is a relic and both Blair and Kennedy are probably loving every moment of this farce.

Conway and Forth are pretty pissed off about Davis dropping out.
We shall see...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My versions(only PA, IL and GA at present):

PENNSYLVANIA
01. Philadelphia South
02. Philadelphia North
03. Erie-Butler
04. Allegheny
05. West Susquehanna  
06. Chester-Berks
07. Chester
08. Bucks
09. Tuscarora
10. East Susquehanna  
11. Wilkes-Barr
12. Johnstown
13. Philadelphia-Mifflin
14. Pittsburgh
15. Allentown
16. West Chester
17. Harrisburg
18. Westmoreland
19. Gettysburg

ILLINOIS
01. Chicago-Southside
02. Chicago Heights
03. Chicago West
04. Chicago-Cicero
05. Chicago-Northside
06. DuPage
07. Chicago Central
08. McHenry-Lake
09. Chicago Northside
10. North Chicago
11. Joliet
12. East St Louis and the Valleys
13. Will-DuPage
14. Batavia-Henry
15. Wabash
16. Rockford
17. Springfield-Moline
18. Springfield-Peoria-Illinois River
19. Kaskakia-Lincon

GEORGIA
01. Okefenokee-Atlantic
02. Cherokee and Seminole
03. Jefferson Long
04. Stone Mountain
05. Atlanta
06. Fulton-Cobb
07. Dahlonega
08. Peachtree
09. Egmont
10. John Ross
11. Berry
12. Savannah
13. Luther King


The base for most of them was Canadian Observers version, but modified where I thought appropriate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

SOUTH CAROLINA
01. Charleston-Atlantic
02. King Charles
03. Anderson-Greenwood-Aitken
04. Greenville-Spartanburg
05. Rock Hill
06. Florence-Orangeburg

Only minor changes

[Filuwaúrdjan]

INDIANA
01. Gary-Hammond
02. La Porte-St. Joseph
03. Fort Wayne-Maumee
04. Wallace-Greenwood
05. Shelbyville-Carmel
06. Muncie-Anderson
07. Indianapolis
08. Evans-Vincennes  
09. Jeffersonville-New Albany

[DarthKosh]

Something to remember is Mississippi's majority law:

If no candidate gets 50% +1, the election goes to the State House.

I'd like to see them give it to the dem if gets less votes.

[Ryan]

Something to remember is Mississippi's majority law:

If no candidate gets 50% +1, the election goes to the State House.

Interesting! Y'know the same applies for Presidential elections. If no one gets a majority of electoral votes it goes to the house of reps. However I understand its not a simple vote. Each delegation casts one vote, which is determined by the will of the majority of the delegation.

I'm not 100% sure about this but if its true its throws up some interesting possibilities. In the 2000 election if the House decided it (and all party members voted for their party’s candidate) then Gore would have won Texas, Mississippi and North Dakota while Bush would have won Connecticut & Delaware among others. :)Incidentally in such an election Bush would have won as the GOP holds most state delegations.

Still not 100% on the whole thing though. Will post an inquiry on the qt/Ans forum.

[Ryan]

Btw I forgot to ask you Realpolitik, as you mentioned this rule, I assume that there are other candidates running who can be expected to win at least 1% of the votes??? Could you provide a bit more info on that?? thanks

[Ryan]

I'm curious as to the ideological differences between the Lib Dems and Labour. They do seem quite alike in General (actually Lib Dems and "Old" Labour seemed quite alike)

Even better I would like to know about differences in the voter base or the two parties. Granted both have left-leaning voters but are there demographic differences??
Would appreciate any insight you guys have on this??

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nor do I like explaining Economics 101 to you.

<<Unemployment started going up dramatically after Bush's tax cuts took effect.>>

I love how you only point to lagging indicators.  Did it ever occur to you that rising unemployment FOLLOWS poor GDP performance?  

If not, look at a historical chart plotting GDP growth against Unemployment.  Even a liberal like you should be able to see the correlation!

And, while you're at it, chart GDP and Job growth after the major tax cuts of Kennedy (3% GDP tax cut) and Reagan (2% GDP tax cut)

---

<<Jobs are what matter to most people, not GDP growth.>>

That's about as dumb as saying, "Harvest is what matters to most farmers, not planting."

Where are the jobs if there is no growth?

---  

<<Corporate profits that don't lead to hiring don't help the poor and middle class much>>

Are you 12 years old or something?

Again, find a historical chart plotting corporate profits against employment gains.

The real scary thing about you is that most people understand, WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE IT EXPLAINED TO THEM, that businesses are more likely to hire when business is good (good in business means making money) and more likely to fire when business is bad (bad means profits are dropping).

---
 
<<when you look at the economic records of the past 25 years, it is obvious (to any honest person, as you would like to say) that the economy has performed better under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations>>

I guess you are 12 years old!

Carter left us in a absolute chaos that is not comparable to ANYTHING since he left office!  

Reagan's deregulation (credited by even Clinton)  led the economy from double digit unemployment, inflation, and interest rates to the longest boom in American peace time.

Bush41 walked away from Reagan's tax policies and a recession began in August 1990, 18 months AFTER Regan left office.  The economy started growing again in March 1991, two years BEFORE Bush41 left office.  1992 GDP growth was +3.0% and in 1992Q4 GDP growth was +6.0%.

Clinton inherited an economy two years into expansion.  And 1993 & 1995 saw GDP growth BELOW 1992 (Bush41's last full year).   Although the economy broke Reagan's record for the longest expansion, it was also declining into recession when Clinton left office.  

Of these four presidents, Reagan made by far the most fundamental changes.  In fact, aside from Bush41's and Clinton's tax increases, one could easily make the argument that Bush41 and Clinton followed Reagan's lead.

Even Clinton, in a brief moment of honesty, attributed much of the credit of the 90's boom to Reagan's free market policies.

---

<<Even in the summer of 2001, after 2 straight quarters of GDP shrinkage, the economy was still doing decently well (still much better than it had been when Clinton took office).>>

2 straight quarters of GDP shrinkage is definition of a RECESSION.  Clinton did NOT take office in a recession.

---

<<As for the other reasons that you state for the poor economy, if the long lead up to war is to blame for the economy, that's still Bush's fault since this is his war.>>

In all reality, the US has been continually at war with Iraq since August1990.  Bush simply finally chose to try to bring it to a close due to the realization that the middle east had to be overthrown.

But, I do blame Bush taking 9 months in the lead up to invading Iraq.  Bush41 took only 5 months and moved twice as many troops into position.

---

<<As for corporate scandals, Enron had close ties to Bush and the GOP.>>

I had even closer ties, before and after, since I work in the Energy Trading industry and wrote some of their trading systems.  I was even working in Enron's headquarters for 7 months.

But, having a relationship with Enron does NOT mean that I had anything to do with their decisions to break the law.

Truth be known, it&#8217;s the accounting companies that dream up these schemes.

And Enron had very close ties to a lot of Dems also.  Enron was smart and gave huge sums to BOTH parties.  

You're a HACK!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ISM index surges
 
Closely watched measure of manufacturing activity stronger than expected in October.
 
"This is the best report that we have seen in quite some time in terms of the overall strength of manufacturing," said Norbert Ore, chair of the ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. "The picture continues to improve, and it appears that manufacturing will finish 2003 on a very positive note, assuming the recent trend continues."

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/news/economy/ism/index.htm

---

Construction spending hits record

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/news/economy/construction.reut/index.htm

[Ryan]

I would caution against using bellwethers that didn&#8217;t work in 2000. For example Delaware has voted for the winning candidate for the TEN elections from 1960 through 1996. In 2000 it voted for the loser and by a huge margin. Proponents of its bell-weather status failed to note it had become increasingly democratic and only retained bellwether status in the 90's because the democrats happened to win both the elections held that decade.  

The exact same applies for Illinois. It is competitive only if there is a republican landslide. I don&#8217;t rule out that happening but until there is a definite sign of it, Il. Remains in the solid democrat column.

After reading something about Illinois being one of the most carried states in Presidential elections, I decided to check it out:
Illinois has only failed to be carried by five Presidents:
William Harrison (1840)
Grover Cleveland (1884)
Woodrow Wilson (1916)
James Carter (1976)
George W Bush (2000)
The first four didnt win the next election, and neither did their party. Not to say that we should use history as any guide, but the last son of  a President to become President was elected after not winning the popular vote and then lost the next election. Also, it couldn't be coincidence that the last man to be elected President direct from the Senate was a Democrat from the state of Massachusetts with the initials JFK.

By the way, I think that your apportioning of the states is probably a little early as we have no idea who the Democrat ticket is. If Gephardt is on it, I would imagine they will carry Missouri!! What about DC, do you think theres any chance of an 80% swing and the Republicans winning it!!!!

Peter

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Basically Labour are Democratic Socialists and the Liberal Democrats are Social Liberals.

The LibDems are to Labour's left on much social issues(eg. Drugs, immigration), but Labour are way to the LibDems left on economics(Labour's economic policy is Kenysian and very interventionalist, the LibDems economic policy is more centrist).

The LibDems were formed from a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party(who had broken off from Labour).

Labour's core constituancy is obvious from the name; Lower income and blue collar voters.

The LibDems do best amoung the liberal wing of the middle classes("Hampstead Liberals"), and in rural areas.

"Old Labour" never really existed... If you mean the "Bennites" the LibDems are nothing like them at all... in America the Bennites would be liked to communists.

Most LibDem voters vote on social issues, most Labour voters with their wallets.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In an election as close as Mississippi looks like, a few thousand votes would do...

And yes the Democrat dominated State House would almost certainly give it to Musgrove if it comes to that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

from http://www.politicalwire.com:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ryan]

Illionois looks unwinnible for the GOP at present, though I won't rule out an upset.
But people there are still pissed off with Ryan.

WV is being treating by all sides a Dem auto-gain, Bush has done nothing for the coal industry and has wrecked the education system and the states budget.

I agree with the Illinois conclusion (refer last post) However I note that you attribute this to the unpopularity of the last Republican Governor who was thoroughly repudiated by his own party the GOP.
In West Virginia's case however the mess you attribute entirely to Bush despite the fact that a generally unsuccessful and unpopular DEMOCRATIC Governor rules the state.

Anyhows just pointing that out, .........as to the auto-gain part as pete pointed out it depends entirely upon the dem. nominee. If its someone like Gephardt then I may agree its a likely dem gain (though not auto). However if its Dean or the like then the cultural differences which sunk Gore will again deliver the state to Bush.

[Ryan]

I am among the growing group of people observing the economy who believe that the Bush tax cuts have worked as did Reagans before them. However what political dividends it may or may not pay are still far from certain. This is because of the so-called "Jobless Recovery".
I am enlosing an article by Charlie Cook which gives a simple but useful overview of the problem.

When we get the first look at economic growth numbers for the third
quarter of this year on Thursday, those Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
figures may well show impressive economic growth -- a sign that
President Bush's tax cut-oriented economic growth package did in fact
stimulate the economy. History has shown that economic growth through
the second quarter of the election year usually results in re-election
for incumbent presidents. But the question today is whether that
relationship will remain as strong in 2004 as it has been in the past.
                     
Despite the fact that the economic downturn "officially" began in March
2001 and ended in November 2001, there has been a net loss of 2.6
million jobs since the president took office, giving weight to the term
"jobless recovery." A recent paper by two economists with the Federal
Reserve Board of New York show quite clearly that the most recent
economic downturn and recovery is very different from past ones.
Furthermore, they suggest that economic growth figures in the near term
may not be accompanied by the same kind of net job growth in the future.
           
Writing in the August issue of "Current Issues in Economics and
Finance," Erica L. Groshen and Simon Potter looked at the pattern of
layoffs and job creation during and after the last six economic
downturns. Observing that "recessions mix cyclical (temporary) and
structural (permanent) adjustments," Groshen and Potter found that 49
percent of the job losses were cyclical in the economic downturns of
both the mid-1970s and the early 1980s. These are temporary layoffs
whereby an employer "suspends" an employee's job because of reduced
demand for goods or services, and then recalls that employee when the
economy turns around, fueling fast payroll growth. In those two
downturns, the other 51 percent of job losses were more structural, or
permanent, layoffs -- where an employee's job is simply eliminated and
he or she is forced to seek a new job. Given that new job creation takes
much longer than simply recalling former workers, structural losses are
far more serious.
                           
That 49 percent cyclical/51 percent structural mix of the 1970s and 80s
changed to 43 percent cyclical and 57 percent structural in the economic
downturn of the early 1990s, as more jobs were either relocated to other
countries or eliminated completely. For the most part, this shift went
unnoticed.

In the current economic downturn and recovery, however, Groshen and
Potter found that 79 percent of job losses were structural and only 21
percent were cyclical. Jobs in the fields of communications, electronic
equipment and securities and commodities brokers were largely
eliminated. Indeed the only field that has truly prospered through this
period is in the standard industrial code of "non-depository
institutions" -- a group that notably includes mortgage brokers, who
have benefited greatly from historically low interest rates and strong
home buying and refinancing.
                           
Equally alarming but more anecdotal are stories of high technology or
other "knowledge-based" jobs increasingly shifting abroad, whether it is
call centers handling customer service and technical support or computer
programming and other highly skilled jobs. I recently heard of some
corporate legal departments shifting more rudimentary legal work --
drafting contracts and the like -- to India, an English-speaking country
that uses the same English common-law legal system as the United States.
       
No doubt some of these structural job losses are the result of the
impressive productivity gains that American corporations have enjoyed in
recent years due to automation and more efficient processes. But it is
also clear that many of these losses are trade-related. As long as
trade-related job losses were confined largely to relatively low-skilled
manufacturing jobs, many thought it was unfortunate but inevitable.
Low-skill jobs like producing pencils could be done abroad more cheaply
and efficiently than by higher-paid Americans under more strict
environmental and safety standards. But as the job losses have shifted
to higher-skill sectors -- the very jobs for which displaced workers
were told they should retrain -- this becomes a far more serious
problem.
                         
While few believe the solution is to construct trade barriers in this
country, the latest round of structural job losses is a far different
and greater problem than we have experienced in the past. And it isn't
just an economic or trade problem. It also is a political problem.
Sooner or later, voters will demand answers from their elected officials
or candidates for Congress and president.

[Ryan]

In many states, independents and even Republicans may vote in the democratic primaries.
Dave

Does anyone have a list of the states where members of the other party and/or independents can vote in either or both parties primaries??

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

***IMPORTANT NOTE***

Notice that the Economic Cycle Research Institute's US Weekly Leading Index (the first chart on post #1 of this thread) had reported a 20-year high in August.

When the 3Q GDP was reported Oct 30, it also showed a 20 year high!

In other words, this is *THE* index to watch.  It accurately told us what was going on MONTHS before the official reports came out.

It also has, by far, the best track record of any other index.

---

Currently, the rate of growth in the index has slowed from it's 20-year high of +13.2% (8/21/2003) to +10.3% (10/24/2003).

To give you an idea of how fast the economy is currently growing, the index never went above +8.2% during the 90's boom.

http://www.businesscycle.com/freedata.php

So, although we may not see 7.2% GDP growth in Q4 like we did in Q3,  >4.5% GDP growth in certainly in the cards for Q4, and 6% GDP growth for Q4 is NOT out of the question.

[Ryan]

When is the deadline for Independent candidates to get into the race? I understand that some states have their own deadlines to get on the ballot.

I ask so as to know how much time Sharpton has after the dem. primaries are over to decide to run on his own.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Semiconductor Industry Association said chip sales rose 6.5 percent in September from a year earlier, the biggest gain in about 13 years. Sales in the third quarter rose 17.5 percent from the same point a year earlier.