2004 Democratic Primary
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:58:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 Democratic Primary
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 59
Author Topic: 2004 Democratic Primary  (Read 438365 times)
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: November 03, 2003, 02:10:34 PM »

No, I'm not 12 years old, I'm actually twice that, and I don't understand why you feel it necessary to resort to such inane tactics as insulting me personally and assuming that I must be stupid because I am liberal. Educated people can have differences of opinion and hopefully still respect each other's views even if they disagree.
Yes, I realize that growth is necessary for jobs, but growth does not necessarily automatically lead to jobs...corporations could be mechanizing work to reduce the number of employees that they need. Or, as Ryan pointed out in the article he cited, corporations could be moving factories overseas where labor is cheaper. Yes, the only thing that matters to the farmer is the harvest, not the planting. Planting is needed for harvesting, but ultimately, all that matters to the farmer is how many crops he harvests, not how many he plants. I understand that GDP growth is more likely to lead to hiring, but it isn't necessarily always going to lead to it. There are other factors to consider. How about tying the tax cuts directly to job growth, by giving corporations a tax credit for each job that they create?
Yes, I realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator. But unemployment has steadily risen throughout Bush's entire term, until the last 3 months when it has dipped down from 6.4% to 6.1% If this trend continues, it will help Bush's reelection chance immensely, no doubt. But despite better GDP growth after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, unemployment still continued to rise.
Supply-side economics doesn't work. Demand creates supply, while supply has very little effect on demand. (Or, to the extent that it does create demand for a particular product, it takes away demand from other products). Why would corporations invest the money they get from a tax cut into producing more goods and hiring more workers unless they could be assured that there would be sufficient demand? It wouldn't make good business sense; if the economy is poor, it would make more sense for corporations to use the money in some other way. Unemployment is a lagging indicator because demand creates supply; the economy has to get moving first before businesses will start producing more goods and hiring more workers. Keyensian economics works much better; government should increase spending to get the economy moving. Corporations won't produce supply unless there is demand because it's not in their best interests. And tax cuts do decrease government revenue, not increase it as many ardent supply-siders argue. I'm glad to see that you admitted to that much, although some conservatives still insist that the deficits would be larger if not for Bush's tax cuts.
Bush 41 didn't walk away from Reagan's tax policies until October of 1990; the economic recovery was starting to occur just as the Bush tax increases were beginning to take effect, and the recession had already begun before Bush raised taxes. What doomed Bush in 1992 was that the economy wasn't recoving fast enough and jobless rates were still relatively high, the record budget deficits, and the abandonment of him by conservatives who were angry about the tax increases. Another key factor was that Bush appeared to be out of touch with the nation's problems, a perception which was probably not entirely correct, but this perception hurt consumer confidence (which is partly fueled by such perceptions). Bush, by choosing to attack Clinton as a potential tax raiser in order to try to regain his base was unable to defend his own economic policies.
As for Kennedy's tax cuts, he cut the top rate from 91% down to 70%. A 91% tax rate on the wealthy is too high; at that point, high taxes do stifle economic growth. But, with tax rates on the wealthy of 70% in the 1960's, the economy still did quite well. The economy didn't start to go south until Vietnam started sapping away much of our resources, and then the Arab oil embargo hit in the mid 1970's which had a devastating effect. Granted, the economy was poor under Carter, but it was also pretty bad under Nixon and Ford, as well.
Clinton did not take office in a recession, true, but unemployment was much higher when Clinton took office then it was in June 2001. (I realize that we have fundamental disagreements about which is more important, you favoring GDP growth, me favoring unemployment). Yes, I know it's a lagging indicator, but unemployment went continually down throughout Clinton's entire term, and has gone up throughout Bush's entire term, in both cases extending well after the lag effect from the previous administrations would have worn off.
Yes, I know that Bush isn't entirely responsible for Enron's troubles. And of course, we'll never find out just how much of a relationship there was, since the meetings of Dick Cheney's energy task force will be kept secret.
As for the war in Iraq, part of the reason that it took Bush longer than his father was probably because he didn't have nearly as much international backing from the UN. (Certainly, one could argue that he should have moved faster and not even bothered trying to get the UN's support) It's also worth noting that Bush 41 delayed a vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq until after the 1990 midterm elections because he didn't want to make it a partisan wedge-issue, he wanted the nation to come together around the war effort, while Bush 43 did the exact opposite. There could have been a much better united national and international consensus on fighting the war against terrorism if Bush hadn't been so eager to use it for political gain (i.e., saying that Dems are unpatriotic for actually expecting airport security employees to have the fair employment protections of a union). And if Bush really is going to clean house and dispose every Middle Eastern government, that's a process that will use an enormous amount of our government's time and resources (and is it going to continue to be payed for by borrowing from our future?).
I find the article you cited very interesting, Ryan. The comparison between cyclical and structural job losses is not one that I had been familiar with, but it makes sense in context and further serves to illustrate one of the key differences between this recession and those of the 1970's and early 80's (and even that of the early 90's, in which the trend toward more structural losses had begun but not nearly to the extent it is now).
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: November 03, 2003, 02:22:50 PM »

Its a good idea to name the districts and you guys have obviously put in a great deal of effort on it and though I havent read em closely, it looks like you have done a good job.

However I want to ask whether you have found any districts which really cant be given any single name as due to gerrymandering they stretch over large areas, many counties or cities. How do you deal with these?

Also you would have had to make many changes if you had done this before the post  2000 redistricting. Which congressional districts are these?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: November 03, 2003, 04:14:15 PM »

<<corporations could be mechanizing work to reduce the number of employees that they need>>

That's called increasing productivity and that is the ONLY free lunch the economy has.

Productivity is the engine for real economic growth, and productivity increased in 2002 at a 6% rate, the fastest since 1950.  In 2003, productivity is growing even FASTER.

Increased productivity is a sign of America's economic might and lays the foundation for much higher living standards in the future.  It is not an accident that the US has BOTH the highest standard of living AND the highest productivity of any major country.

---

<<Yes, I realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator. But unemployment has steadily risen throughout Bush's entire term...despite better GDP growth after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, unemployment still continued to rise.>>

That's because from 2002Q2-2003Q1, the economy had three quarters of <1.5% GDP growth (due largely to the Iraq war).  That hardly covers population growth, much less the growth of productivity.  The economy will have to string together multiple back-to-back >3% growth quarters in order to create jobs.

So, even though you CLAIM to understand that employment is a lagging indicator, you keep complaining about job growth when we are just NOW producing constistent > 3% growth.

---

<<Supply-side economics doesn't work>>

LOL!  Throwing cash into the hands of CONSUMERS is not what I would call "supply-side" economics.  Neither is increasing government spending.

The cut in dividend taxes are supply-side...so Bush has included a mix of supply-side and demand-side stimulus.

---

<<Demand creates supply, while supply has very little effect on demand.>>

The idea behind supply-side economics is that government has artificially restrained the ability to generate opportunity (supply).  If you give someone the opportunity to find a better, more productive solution, then he can bring a completive product to market (increasing supply).   In turn, that will lead to lower prices, higher productivity&#8230;and ultimately, a higher standard of living.

As far as demand goes&#8230;.there are only so many hamburgers one can eat, and so many shoes one can wear.  What the modern public &#8220;DEMANDS&#8221; is a supply of products that can make life more productive and/or enjoyable &#8211; A.K.A. &#8220;innovation&#8221;.  

Without innovation (supply of new and better products), demand will stagnate at the rate of population growth.  And since the demand for innovation is ALWAYS present, regardless of economic conditions, allowing people the freedom to create innovations is the whole idea behind &#8220;supply-side&#8221; economics.

&#8220;Supply-side&#8221; does NOT mean to increase the supply of the same quality of good; rather it means to increase the supply of INOVATION by allowing people the opportunity to succeed to their ability.  

The motivation to innovate is belief in the ability to be awarded according to one&#8217;s productivity.  For example:  Bill Gates has built a company selling products that have greatly increased economic productivity.  In turn, he has been rewarded proportionately.

---

<<Keyensian economics works much better; government should increase spending to get the economy moving>>

Well, if that&#8217;s the case, Bush is engaged in the largest Keyensian experiment ever dreamed up.

---

<<And tax cuts do decrease government revenue, not increase it as many ardent supply-siders argue. I'm glad to see that you admitted to that much, although some conservatives still insist that the deficits would be larger if not for Bush's tax cuts.>>

You misunderstood my comments&#8230;.granted tax cuts reduce revenues in the short term.  But the idea is to plant a seed that will produce a harvest many more times than what was planted.

---

<<How about tying the tax cuts directly to job growth, by giving corporations a tax credit for each job that they create?>>

I&#8217;d rather allow companies to spend the tax cut in the manner in which they see best.  Some companies may be in a position to hire, but others may be in a competitive disadvantage and need investment in productivity in order to SAVE EXISTING JOBS.
 
---

<<Bush 41 didn't walk away from Reagan's tax policies until October of 1990; the economic recovery was starting to occur just as the Bush tax increases were beginning to take effect&#8230;What doomed Bush in 1992 was that the economy wasn't recovering fast enough and jobless rates were still relatively high&#8230;>>

Maybe there was a correlation between the slow recovery and tax increases.

---

<<As for Kennedy's tax cuts, he cut the top rate from 91% down to 70%. A 91% tax rate on the wealthy is too high; at that point, high taxes do stifle economic growth. But, with tax rates on the wealthy of 70% in the 1960's, the economy still did quite well>>

The Fed government took in a MUCH lover % of GDP in taxes than it does today.  

Also, go and look at the countries around the world that have the most &#8220;progressive&#8221; income tax rates, with top rates of 50 percent or more.  You&#8217;ll find that their income taxes bring in very little money.  In contrast, the US top rate is 40% and those taxes generate 55% of Federal revenue.  Why the difference?  Because the US system is extremely good at generating WEALTH.  And where there is wealth, there is tax revenue.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: November 03, 2003, 04:44:13 PM »

Prediction:

Kentucky: GOP gain
Mississippi: Too Close(50% chance of under 50%)
Lousiana: Too Close
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: November 03, 2003, 04:51:30 PM »

Point is that the media in WV are blaming Bush, while in IL it still seems to be blaming Ryan.

Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: November 03, 2003, 05:19:28 PM »

Key battlegrounds:

Minnesota-GOP made big gains in the 2002 midterms but the DFL usually churns out narrow Dem victories in presidential elections.  Lean Democrat.

Florida-Lean Bush.

Arkansas-A fairly liberal state, but a northerner couldn't carry it.  Edwards would, though.

California-This state is the biggest battleground in 2004.  62% of the votes in the Recall went to Republicans, so this poses a problem for my party.  Lean Democrat.

New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania-lean Bush.

Illinois is solid Dem.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: November 03, 2003, 06:03:10 PM »

Prediction:

Kentucky: GOP gain
Mississippi: Too Close(50% chance of under 50%)
Lousiana: Too Close

You should remove your LA prediction, the election isn't until Nov 15th, so there is no need yet to post a prediction.
Logged
NorthernDog
Rookie
**
Posts: 166


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: November 03, 2003, 08:37:25 PM »

A Republican win in Kentucky would be significant since the Democrats have held the governer's office for 30+ years.  More evidence of re-alignment in the Border States.
In Mississippi, I've heard that Republicans are experimenting with their Get Out the Vote operation planned for '04.  We'll see if it works well enough to get Barbour over the 50% mark.
 
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: November 03, 2003, 08:39:20 PM »

Kentucky:narrow GOP gain
Misssisipi:DEM win
Lousiana:as of write now dem victory
Logged
DarthKosh
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 902


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: November 03, 2003, 09:09:15 PM »


Latest poll has Fletcher up 8 points.
Logged
Canadian observer
Rookie
**
Posts: 157


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: November 04, 2003, 12:33:10 AM »
« Edited: November 04, 2003, 12:34:53 AM by Canadian observer »

I based my list on the printable maps of the congressional districts (108th Congress), available at nationalatlas.gov


I assume that the Texas districting from which I based the naming is the one implemented by the courts in 2001.

Gerrymandered district are quite hard to name. In theses cases, I tried as far as I can to put a name that wouldn't be geographical, but would refer to a historical event or person.
Logged
Canadian observer
Rookie
**
Posts: 157


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: November 04, 2003, 12:40:16 AM »

I don't know, maybe he was trying to make his announcement in French. Wink
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: November 04, 2003, 05:02:42 AM »

Key battlegrounds:

Minnesota-GOP made big gains in the 2002 midterms but the DFL usually churns out narrow Dem victories in presidential elections.  Lean Democrat.

Florida-Lean Bush.

Arkansas-A fairly liberal state, but a northerner couldn't carry it.  Edwards would, though.

California-This state is the biggest battleground in 2004.  62% of the votes in the Recall went to Republicans, so this poses a problem for my party.  Lean Democrat.

New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania-lean Bush.

Illinois is solid Dem.

I think Nevada will eventually trend towards the Democrats due to the rapidly growing population of Las Vegas. I also think Pennsylvania may be a gain for the GOP as both Philly and Pittsburgh are losing population and therefore the Dem influence will decrease.
I can't see the Republicans winning California, it was safely Democrat in 2000 and demographic changes are not in the GOP's favour. As for New Hamphire, this was a knife edge last time, I think the Democrats may just swing it.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: November 04, 2003, 05:27:37 AM »

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??

Generally I would say the Liberal Democrats are socially to the left of the Labour party, economically slightly to the right. I would disagree that economically Labour and the Liberals are hugely different. Fiscally Labour has shifted enormously to the right since the 1980's when they were beholden to the unions. The voter base however is very different, although the LD's are usually the party of protest for both disillutioned Tories and Labourites. Labour voters are traditionally white working class and ethnic minorities. These groups are usually not very liberal and vote Labour merely out of economic interest. Liberal Democrat voters however are usually middle class and liberal. Doctors, teachers and people in the Arts often vote LD. The LD's however also attract a lot of votes from poor rural voters in areas such as Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, the Scottish Highlands and Herefordshire. These people wouldn't dream of voting Labour in a million years, however they also dislike the Tories so tend to plump for the LD's.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: November 04, 2003, 05:40:17 AM »

The LibDems are not even close to being a threat to Labour in the Northern Cities.
They are no-where in Newcastle, have been seriously hurt by council cock-ups/corruption in Sheffield and Liverpool, and them holding a seat in L'Pool prior to '97 was only because of the "Alton Factor".

I have not a clue why they harp on about N.U.T, they did finish second in N.U.T Central and N.U.T East-Wallsend, but they need to topple majorities of 33.2% and 43.4%
It is not going to happen.

Very few Labour seats are actually under threat from the LibDems, and they would be better off decapitating the Tories(which is actually their official policy).

Howard, May, Davis and Letwin are all in *serious* trouble next time round.

In local elections the LD's do very well in Northern Cities. I agree they have lost seats here recently, however in General Elections they have increased their vote hugely in places like Sheffield, Hull and Newcastle overtaking the Tories. I predict at least 5 northern urban seats will follow Chesterfield's example and switch to the LD's in 2005/06. Watch for Olham West (Maj LD), Hull North (Maj LD), Sheffield Hillsborough(Maj LD), Manchester Gorton (LD's hold all the council seats here) and Rochdale (held by LD until 97).
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: November 04, 2003, 06:17:44 AM »

More on WV: Wise got into trouble because of he had an affair. He has since decided not to seek re-election in 2004.
He is not being blamed for WV's budget problems, Bush's education policy is. There was a long article on it in the Washington Post a bit ago.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: November 04, 2003, 06:37:28 AM »

This is what he actually said:

Harris: "Bonjewer, Jeemaple en Godfather IV, et moy je'detestey le loosing et la election to le Liberele merdey Paul Martin.
Soo Jai will not beecoom le capitain of le Titanic(le CPC).
Oil Resivoir!"

Crowd booes and starts riot etc.

Harris: "Whadya know... I've still got it!

exit stage right, pursued by a bear
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: November 04, 2003, 06:44:41 AM »

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??

Generally I would say the Liberal Democrats are socially to the left of the Labour party, economically slightly to the right. I would disagree that economically Labour and the Liberals are hugely different. Fiscally Labour has shifted enormously to the right since the 1980's when they were beholden to the unions. The voter base however is very different, although the LD's are usually the party of protest for both disillutioned Tories and Labourites. Labour voters are traditionally white working class and ethnic minorities. These groups are usually not very liberal and vote Labour merely out of economic interest. Liberal Democrat voters however are usually middle class and liberal. Doctors, teachers and people in the Arts often vote LD. The LD's however also attract a lot of votes from poor rural voters in areas such as Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, the Scottish Highlands and Herefordshire. These people wouldn't dream of voting Labour in a million years, however they also dislike the Tories so tend to plump for the LD's.

Actually if you look carefully at what they both say they will do, and what Labour has done, there is a big difference... but you have to look for it.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: November 04, 2003, 08:42:40 AM »

Oldham West and Royton: Lab maj. 33.5%
Manchester Gorton: Lab maj. 41.5%
Rochdale: Lab maj. 14.3%
Sheffield Hillsborough: Lab maj. 34.2%
Hull North: Lab maj. 37.4

Rochdale and S-H are not urban seats, they have more than a small rural element and are "county" seats.

Although I can see them picking up Rochdale, I would doubt that they will pick up any of the others.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: November 04, 2003, 10:38:07 AM »

final predictions:

MS - GOP pickup 51.5% (R)- 48.5% (D)
KT - GOP pickup 56% (R) - 44% (D)
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: November 04, 2003, 11:37:53 AM »

I've decided to have a go at naming the districts using the method we use in the U.K
As a result I'd better explain what county and borough seats are.
The best description is from David Boothroyd's(a Labour counciller) excellent site(www.election.demon.co.uk) :

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A b next to the districts name will mean borough, and a c will mean county.


Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 332


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: November 04, 2003, 11:43:40 AM »

Point taken. However be careful of predicting popular opinion based on media commentary or if you do, at least look at the track record of the specific media outlet you consider.

For instance if you go by the NYT almost every ill in America is due to Bush while the WSJ says the opposite. But I know liberal and conservative readers of both the WSJ and the NYT and while they are generally happy with these papers they do not take everything they read there at face value.
If you find usually conservative or moderate papers panning Bush, then maybe you have a reason to say there could be a decline in support.

Also dont forget that you have presumably seen only those media outlets which have an internet presence and these would be mainly newspapers. Others will disagree but I have found majority of US local newspapers to be left-of-center. Local Television stations are less so and Radio especially talk radio balances out the print media's leftward bias. These probably wont have a net presence so you havent got a complete picture of media coverage in WV.

Btw I reiterate that I think WV is competitive. My purpose is to warn you against predicting popular reaction based on media reporting especially if you rely on the net for that. It doesn&#8217;t present a complete picture.


Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: November 04, 2003, 11:47:37 AM »

Final Prediction before I go and vote for Steve Levy for County Exectutive here in Suffolk....

GOP wins in Kentucky and Lousiana, and Musgrove wins in the state house in Mississippi.

Levy!  Levy!  Levy!
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: November 04, 2003, 11:49:54 AM »

I see that both of you have done wondeful reasarch (Realpolitik and Observer).  It is a project that I am simply too lazy to do.. nice work.
Logged
DarthKosh
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 902


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: November 04, 2003, 11:51:27 AM »

Final Prediction before I go and vote for Steve Levy for County Exectutive here in Suffolk....

GOP wins in Kentucky and Lousiana, and Musgrove wins in the state house in Mississippi.

Levy!  Levy!  Levy!

Final Prediction:

Kentucky-Fletcher
Mississippi-Baebour above 50%.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 59  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 13 queries.