2004 Democratic Primary (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:20:05 PM
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 (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: 2004 Democratic Primary  (Read 438353 times)
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« on: October 29, 2003, 07:12:42 AM »

I would predict a narrow Democrat Victory.

Alaska- Rep
Hawaii- Dem
Washington- Dem
Oregon- Dem
California- Dem
Nevada- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Idaho- Dem (only joking!) Rep
Arizona- Rep
New Mexico- Dem
Utah- Rep
Montana- Rep
Wyoming- Rep
Colorado- Rep
North Dakota- Rep
South Dakota- Rep
Nebraska- Rep
Kansas- Rep
Oklahoma- Rep
Texas- Rep
Minnesota- Dem
Wisconsin- Dem
Iowa- Dem
Illinois- Dem
Missouri- Rep
Arkansas- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Louisiana- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Michigan- Dem
Indiana- Rep
Ohio- Rep
Kentucky- Rep
Tennesee- Rep
Mississippi- Rep
Alabama- Rep
Georgia- Rep
Florida- Dem (Gain from Rep)
South Carolina- Rep
North Carolina- Rep
Virginia- Rep
West Virginia- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Maryland- Dem
Pennsylvania- Rep (Gain from Dem)
Delaware- Dem
New York- Dem
Connecticut- Dem
New Jersey- Dem
Vermont- Dem
New Hampshire- Dem (Gain from Rep)
RI- Dem
Massachusetts- Dem
Maine- Dem
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2003, 07:30:56 AM »

If Davis, Howard, Redwood, Widdecombe or Ancram wins, look forward to another Labour Landslide. In fact if Widdecombe wins look foward to the Tories winning just 2 seats, Huntingdon and Chelsea!!
If Ken Clarke, Portillo or Oliver Letwin wins Labour will be in serious trouble. Clarke especially is extremely popular with non-tories (therefore exactly the sort of leader they need) and was an excellent chancellor in the 90's. Portillo is very cultured, charismatic and popular with younger voters. Letwin is also a strong speaker and definately leader material. Unfortunately, non of these is popular amongst Tory's, therefore have no chance of being picked. I would go for Howard and another substantial victory for Labour in 2005/06.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2003, 07:35:37 AM »

Hopefully the Alliance will crash and burn! I'm sure they'll cling on in redneck rural Alberta however!
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2003, 01:02:22 PM »

Who will be Blair's successor?
To be honest I think the outlook for Labour after Tony Blair is rather bleak.
Gordon Brown or Peter Hain are probably about the best. Jack Straw has too much of a silly name  to ever be elected, Geoff Hoon is now very unpopular over the Iraq war, Blunkett is too right wing, Clair Short is too left wing and John Prescott is a complete liability! No-one really stands out to me.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2003, 01:07:36 PM »

Davis is actually MP for my constituency of Haltemprice! Yes, the seat of the infamous fictional right-wing MP Alan B'stard!
I can tell you he isn't popular in my area, in fact his majority was slashed to ribbons in 2001 from over 7,000 to about 1,500. Hopefully the Lib Dems will unseat Davis at the next election if we can persuade enough Labour voters to switch.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2003, 05:40:13 AM »

If Howard gets it I predict the Tories will slip into third place behind the Liberal Democrats. He will never appeal to young wavering Labour voters such as myself. For one thing he is too old, secondly, he is too right wing and a social conservative which will turn off anyone under 40 in droves. He is also a relic from the 1980's Thatcher government, people don't want taking back to those days. They should elect a fresh face such as Oliver Letwin or Boris Johnson, not harped back to the 80's.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2003, 06:02:32 AM »

I know it's a bit early, but I would give the major parties the following

Labour 345
Conservative 150
Liberal Democrat 125

I think Labour will loose seats in Kent, Essex and Herts to the Tories. I predict they may also loose some urban seats in the north to the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems will do extremely well, stealing many marginal seats off the Tories esp. in the West Country. I think Olly Letwin and David Davis will loose their seats to the LD's. Labour will do well in Scotland and London in particular, but will suffer in the south east and in some Northern cities such as Liverpool and Newcastle where the LD's will be resurgent. In the cities the Tories will drop into 3rd or 4th place.
Howard will be forced to resign and the Tories will be forced into another leadership contest. Shortly into Labour's 3rd term, Blair will step down and be replaced by Brown.

Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2003, 11:55:53 AM »

Quite! Howard was very authoritarian when Home Secretary in the 90's and he upset a lot of people. I recall him overruling judges on many occassions. I cannot see him being very popular with the voters, not unless they're manufacturers of CCTV cameras! I must admit he is a good speaker, but not a particularly endearing one, I personally find him rather frightening. No, the Tories have made a serious error in picking Howard.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2003, 04:56:17 AM »

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.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2003, 05:15:20 AM »


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.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #10 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
« Reply #11 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
« Reply #12 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
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2003, 05:20:48 AM »

Look at the way the LD's turned knife edge marginals such as Torbay and Winchester into massively safe seats in 2001. Manchester Gorton, Hull North and Sheffield Hillsborough have given the LD's considerable majorities in local elections, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the LD's can pull off large swings against Labour in these seats. Also Oldham West can hardly be considered a safe seat for Labour, it was a 3 way marginal up until recently and Oldham I understand is now governed by the LD. Liverpool may also cause an upset and send a LD MP to the Westminster. Probably Liverpool Riverside.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2003, 07:47:32 AM »

If this was a European nation, Dean would win hands down and go on to take the White House. That said I would prefer any Democrat who can unseat Bush, even someone on the right like Liebermann.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2003, 05:51:23 AM »

Definately can't see the Democrats winning Mississppi, South Carolina or Virginia. They have been reliably Republican in presidential elections since the 60's. Also New Jersey? Republican? I would say definately a hold for the Democrats.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2003, 06:08:53 AM »

Sorry, yes! I did mean Oldham East & Saddleworth! I would agree with Rochdale, definately a likely LD gain, after all it was held by Cyril Smith for years. I cannot imagine Birmingham Yardley falling, it has been a 3 way marginal for sometime yet has been stubbornly loyal to Labour since 1992. Falmouth and Camborne I fear may fall to the Tories, The LD already control Cornwall, so I can't see them having much desire to elect an LD MP. Most of Labour's voters will probably defect to the Conservatives in F & C. Also I agree about Ceredigion, I hope that does fall to the Liberal Democrats. Plaid Cymru are complete morons.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2003, 10:05:37 AM »

I have to agree with agcat. The Dems will never win Mississippi, Sth Carolina or Virginia, not in a million years. Their vote of 45% in Missi (in the delta), is about saturation level, I can't see it rising any higher than that. These states are too conservative and rural. New Jersey on the other hand is largely urban and industrial with Democrat strongholds such as Newark, Atlantic City, Paterson, Camden & Trenton. New Jersey I predict will remain Democrat and probably get even safer.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2003, 10:48:56 AM »

In 2004 and in future elections I can see there being a very clear split in the vote. The North East and West coast I predict will continue to swing heavily to the Democrats. The entire south and west I believe will be lost for good and become staunchly Republican. Elections will be decided by the mid west states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2003, 08:22:02 AM »

My upload didn't work :-(

Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2003, 11:02:22 AM »

English,
Did you get an error message after attempting the upload?  The files showed up in the directory, but with zero file length.  I don't know what caused that (does the directory that you are attempting to read the file from have the correct permissions set?).  email me your file to leip at this domain (uselectionatlas.org) and I will upload it.

Dave

Yes, I did get an error message, it said I'd already attempted to send the file! I've e-mailed my prediction instead.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2003, 05:07:16 AM »

Canada seems to be in the uniquely enviable position of having a progressive party completely dominant in national elections. The right in Canada really only consists of the CA, and that only 'wins' in Alberta. Even the old Canadian right, the Tories, are hardly what you would consider right wing in the US/UK sense as they are quite liberal on social isssues. It would be nice if all countries were in this position.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2003, 05:34:34 AM »

Canada seems to be in the uniquely enviable position of having a progressive party completely dominant in national elections. The right in Canada really only consists of the CA, and that only 'wins' in Alberta. Even the old Canadian right, the Tories, are hardly what you would consider right wing in the US/UK sense as they are quite liberal on social isssues. It would be nice if all countries were in this position.
Many countries are in such a position - they are controlled by repressive left-wing governments that stamp out the opposition.   But when people dream of a better life they never move to Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. They move to the US.

Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe are hardly progressive are they? Repressive more like.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2003, 05:57:13 AM »

Tyrannies are not democracies. How come conservatives always equate repressive states such as North Korea etc. with Liberalism or Social Democracy?! Liberalism believes in social freedom and civil rights, exactly the opposite of the tyrannical regimes mentioned earlier which are socially extremely conservative and do not believe in any civil rights whatsoever. If anything places like Zimbabwe have a similar social policy to hard line US/UK conservatives i.e anti-gay, anti-abortion etc. etc. They have nothing in common with Liberal states such as Sweden, Canada or Denmark. Mugabe is a paradox, he has a fascist social policy which believes white settlers are vermin and homosexuals lower than pigs, however he as an extreme left marxist economic policy favouring complete state control over everything. As for North Korea, that follows a bizzare extreme marxist ideology dreamt up by it's reclusive leader. This falls at the opposite end of the political spectrum to liberal democracy which I favour.
Logged
English
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,187


WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2003, 06:06:23 AM »

I think the Daily Mail should face charges for inciting hatred against both gays and ethnic minorities. It is the most obnoxious, poisonous, hate filled rubbish ever to grace the breakfast tables of Britain. This is the newspaper that condemned the policy of accepting jews fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany! Absolute evil.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
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 0.059 seconds with 13 queries.