beasley vs. demint, sc runoff

[AuH2O]

I think this race is about image, not real differences at this point. I support DeMint because of Beasley's handling of the Confederate flag issue when he was Governor, but DeMint might well have done the same thing.

Without knowing either guy, I'm not real qualified to say, but it seems to me like DeMint might be the sharper of the two. But Beasley is politically astute and principled. Either one will crush the Democrat.

[AuH2O]

I go to school in South Carolina, and do some political work there. It is not hard to predict. Easy GOP win.

Inez has a 2-4% chance at most.

[AuH2O]

Furman, in Greenville (DeMint's area).

[AuH2O]

Huh? Where'd you get that? Have it for other schools?

I didn't say Furman was representative- actually, most students can't vote in SC because were from other states- but that I am involved with the political scene. Look at all the recent statewide elections: Sanford beats Hodges, Graham beats whoever (I forgot already)...

Tenenbaum has no chance. Trust me, this is not going to be close. Bowles has better odds in NC.

[AuH2O]

Hodges won because Beasley took the Confederate flag off the statehouse. That is the only reason.

As far as Virginia leaning more GOP, I don't even see how it is arguable. I believe that is the position of the US' top political scientist, Larry Sabato of UVA, and the top political scientist with regards to the South, Merle Black of Emory. Perhaps if you lived here you might understand the political situation better.

In the meantime, examine Virginia's Congressional delegation and compare it to that of ten years ago.

Tenenbaum odds: 20:1
Bowles odds: 18:5

[AuH2O]

That's fine, just so you realize your view is a minority one- so who you "trust" appears based on who says what you want to hear...

[AuH2O]

It amazes me that people think Inez is a good candidate. Do any of you know who she beat to become whatever low-level official she is? A guy with a serious speech impediment. The GOP didn't care enough about the post to run someone stronger... and she still didn't run away with it.

Democrats will lose in NC, SC, GA, FL, and probably LA. They can only hope to pull upsets out west to prevent a complete rout.

[AuH2O]

Are you serious?

Competitive states by likely Presidential winner:

Bush

North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Louisiana
Florida
South Dakota
Colorado
Alaska
Oklahoma

Kerry

Illinois

Right off the bat, something becomes apparent: all except one major battle is being fought in Bush territory. So, all else being equal, Republicans would win every single one. Of course, all things are not equal- some candidates are stronger than others, or could turn out to be stronger.

However, most laypeople overestimate the degree to which voters split their ballots. Turnout is highest in Presidential years, and the 'extra' voters are the least likely of all to split. About 2/3 of the electorate votes for a more or less straight ticket- 1/3 for each party. But of course the parties are not of equal strength.

Thus, in, say, North Carolina, Bush should win by 11-16%, depending on his overall performance (I would say 14% is a good figure). In any case, that means well over 10% of Bush voters will have to vote Bowles PLUS the number of Kerry voters that vote Burr (a reasonably small number, but significant if you consider his local strength). So perhaps 15% of Bush's supporters have to go Bowles. Not going to happen. I think Burr is actually a better candidate than Bowles, but he could be inferior by a marginal degree and still win.

Louisiana is always difficult to predict, as it depends on the winner amongst the Democrats. A Northern Democrat last won Louisiana in 1960-- because Kennedy was Catholic. Kerry is, but is secular and disliked by religious voters. Bush will win by 4-10%, perhaps a bit higher if he routs Kerry nationally. John and Vitter are roughly equal candidates- Vitter is a bit better on his own but John is endorsed by Breaux- so this leans GOP. It is not by any means a sure thing. In a non-Presidential year, it would lean DNC.

Colorado is the race everyone thinks Democrats are going to win- for some reason- but will in fact lose, and perhaps handily. 'Celebrity' type candidates always beat expectations, and Coors is surprisingly adept politically. He is well funded in a state Bush will win by 6-12%, and his name recognition is obviously very good. And, let's face it, someone with 'Salazar' as a last name loses 1-2% off the top. Just ask 'Governor' Jindal about it. The Dems did well to get Salazar in the running (he's the only Democrat with any chance at all), but only a fool would give him the race at this point.

Most of the races are the same pattern... strong Dem candidates in Bush country. History is not on their side. EVEN IF BUSH LOSES THE NATIONAL ELECTION he will win those states, or most of them. In 2000, for instance, Slade Gorton lost because GORE helped his opponent in Washington (Gore won by 6%)... Cantwell won by 2,000 total votes. Stabenow also has Gore to thank: he won Michigan by 5%; she won by 1%.

And even when the results do not follow as such, the effect is still clear. In the 2000 Pennslyvania Senate race, Santorum beat Klink 53-45. In a non-Presidential year, he most likely would have won 58-40, perhaps by even more, but Klink was helped by Gore's win and the limited split-ticket voting for people that primarily vote in Presidential elections.

Trust me, the Democrats are not in good shape- whatever your liberal friends tell you. Much better shape than anticipated, but bleak nonetheless. GOP gains 2-3 seats, 4 if Bush wins big.

[AuH2O]

Look, arrogant prick- you haven't proven ANYTHING. You make predictions, without reasons, and without historical precedent, while I make predictions based on such things. We'll see who is right.

I actually put money on stuff like this- and win a lot of money on stuff like this. I don't care if you like reality or not... you can stay in your dream world for all I care. But, if you don't have something even remotely constructive to say, don't say it.

[AuH2O]

And, if you were 1/10th as smart as you think you are, you would understand the complexities of voting behavior. Job losses from reductions in certain types of manufacturing (mostly to machines, by the way, very few jobs are truly 'exported') are a relatively minor issue.

Greenville, SC, for instance, benefits tremendously from free trade. BMW North America is HQed in Spartanburg (next door) and Michelin NA is HQed in Greenville. There are literally hundreds of foreign corporations employing thousands of people. Raleigh, Charlotte, and Greensboro likewise benefit.

So, please endeavor to know something about the issues you claim mastery of. You better be around after the election to eat your crow. That's all I ask.

[AuH2O]

Do you know the people that have lost their jobs? Have you talked to them? Do you live in the areas impacted by this?

Most Southerners- whites at least- simply will not vote for a Democrat. They could stay home, but social issues make a cross-over impossible. This article actually does a decent job explaining it, from a balanced perspective:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0618nj1.htm

Job losses have been exaggerated, anyway, and like I said- certain jobs are becoming obsolete. There's nothing a Democrat can do to make sewing jeans a profitable activity in North Carolina. Period.

[AuH2O]

Are you saying most Southerners are non-white?

Maybe you're even stupider than I thought.

[AuH2O]

Most= "majority."

Let me rephrase for your politically correct needs, Mr. Thought Policeman

"A plurality of Southerners, primarily whites, will not consider voting for a Democrat."

Dude, you seriously need a life.

[AuH2O]

Your list doesn't work: long-standing imcumbents without serious opposition are irrelevant. I'm discussing seriously contested races.

Another mistake is to rely on polls this far out. If you use those as your guideline, your conclusions will be highly skewed. Instead, look to the 2000 & 1988 elections, and maybe add Perot's voters to the GOP column for 1992 and 1996. You might be surprised at how little the results vary.

Split-ticketing only occurs en masse when there is no serious opposition. Instead of just looking at percentages, also check out the vote totals. For instance, you cite West Virginia as an example of split-ticketing in 2000. However, over 54,000 fewer votes were cast for Senator than for President-- almost 10% of the Presidential votes cast. In other words, the election was not seen a serious competition and voters, even GOP voters, did not know enough about the GOP Senate candidate to choose him... and they also knew he had no chance. Landreiu won in 2002, but relatively narrowly (52-48%). She was the incumbent, and thus her showing was actually somewhat weak. In a Presidential year, she would have lost. Now there is an open seat. I don't care if there hasn't been a LA Republican Senator since some Yankee tyrant appointed one... the facts are the facts.

I could go through your examples individually, but I don't think it's necessary. Split-ticketing does occur, but the combination Party win for President/close Senate race gives a huge advantage to the person running under the winning Party banner. Zell Miller is not a counter-example. Stephanie Herseth was leading in the polls by 20% a few weeks before her election, and scraped out a 51-49% win-- because she had already run for the seat before and had better name recognition. And that was a mid-year election. By November, Salazar won't be sitting pretty. You'll see.

[AuH2O]

Rural whites voted for Sonny Perdue. Ask Roy Barnes.

[AuH2O]

I'll predict DeMint, but on paper Beasley has a slight edge due to his consistent strength with women voters and statewide reach. We shall see how much effect the endorsements have in DeMint's favor.

I hope DeMint wins... he's a quality guy. Beasley thinks a little too much of himself.

[AuH2O]

Nice call, Red.