2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Gustaf]

You sure make long posts, Ben!

I think your reasoning is fairly sound, sounds good to me overall. If I get this right you're saying, with reservations for unforeseen factors, etc, that Kerry will hol onto all Gore states except New Mexico and, possibly Iowa, while gaining New Hampshire and Ohio, making Kerry win 272-266.

I agree with your general analyses, I think Ohio will be he key state, it's voted for the winner almost every time during American history, with the most recent misses being Nixon in 1960 and Dewey in the 40s.

[Gustaf]

I updated my prediction again. I found "finely balanced" boring...Now Kerry wins 283-255, taking Ohio, WV and Nevada but losing Iowa.
I find it most strange that the average prediction is now 275-263 for the Dems, but the aggregate one is still 278-260 for Bush.

All these stats are very weird, sorry Dave, but I don't trust them one bit. Especially since the map with percentages hasn't changed ever, as far as I've been able to see...

[Gustaf]

No need to jinx him, Kerry WILL LOSE

Don't jinx KErry!   He will LOSE!!!!

Thank you, you have now jinxed Bush.

Yay! Your clever plot to make JR jinx Bush worked, and the presidency is now secured for Kerry!!

Wait...did I jinx it back now?

[Gustaf]

Yes.  You jinxed it back.  You costJohn Kerry the presidency.

See!  I just unjinxed it.

Good! That means...no wait, I don't want to mess up again, I am gonna make sure John Kerry wins this by saying nothing...DAMN!

[Gustaf]

remember when I said befiore you guys needed to get out more?

Yes.  You jinxed it back.  You costJohn Kerry the presidency.

See!  I just unjinxed it.

I like politics, and this is the only internet forum I am a member of...

[Gustaf]

this is the only internet forum I am a member of...

That isn't true.

No? Tell me which the other one is then.

[Gustaf]

this is the only internet forum I am a member of...

That isn't true.

No? Tell me which the other one is then.

http://rainman2242.proboards25.com

Lol...I didn't think of that, sorry...I should have said the only one I post regularly at...I will get back to your forum, it's just that previously I was always the only one on whenever I logged on, so I got bored...

[Gustaf]

Well, post in moderation to keep it running.

I will, tomorrow, I have to go to bed soon, so I'll just finish off things here for tonight.

[Gustaf]

What I find amuzing is the fact that the Dems REALLY want to nominate Howard Dean because he is what they really stand for. Up until the "I have a Scream" speech in Iowa, they were still behind him. They realized that the fringe of his speech was so commonplace, it would scare the commonman. So what happens next? They turn to the next best liberal, and go with Kerry who is more liberal than Tedward Kennedy. Kerry will now be the nominee, and when the news of his politics as Lt. Gov under Mike Dukakis come out, it will reinforce the fact that the Democratic Party is a party of leftys, who cannot appeal to the broad base of America.

Has anyone ever thought about the reason why the GOP has the larger support from individual donors, as opposed to the Big Corp./Union donations needed by the Dems? The GOP has a broader base, and it will be shown in the 2004 election when Bush wins...BIGTIME!

Dean lost Iowa by a huge margin before he held his CONCESSION speech.

[Gustaf]

I think the Deep South is too heavily GOP, with the exception of LA. I'd say LA, AR, NC, TN and VA are the states that could concievably be in play. But that's it, and not all of these would be in play, they just could.

[Gustaf]

The Deep South isn't heavily GOP, the Democrats just need our voters to actually vote...genuine white-black coalition...populism...

Me Tarzan...you Jane...love...

I don't think that coalition will come into being in this election that's all.

[Gustaf]

Arkansas is very much like Lousiana, a Southern state that's similar to MS and AL, but for some reason more Democratic.

[Gustaf]

Cskendrick... opebo is the most consistantly ammoral person on this site.
He likes gerrymandering and low turnouts, and also thinks that Dubya should fake Bin Laden's capture to get re-elected...

What interesting views!

I'll have to ask about them later on.

And he ain't exactly wild about democracy either, considering it ti be mob rule...he makes the mistake of many libertarians to mix up the size of the political domain with the question of how that domain should be ruled...a mix up that plays straight into the nads of the left...

[Gustaf]

All this about not allowing people to vote, look for a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast, an investigative journalist who looked into all of this, it has a copy of a bit of the "scrub list" in it which was the list of people who were stopped from voting because they were "criminals", it has the criminal and all the info and the info of the person stopped from voting, some of whom were of different race from each other so unless they pulled a Michael Jackson, it is unlikely they were the same person

Isn't that book very biased? I am not sure, but I seem to recall that it is...

[Gustaf]

Well it appears the map has finally shifted from all the Democratic fantasy scenarios submitted - New Hampshire is now Red.  I think this is very unlikely to be the case in November.

Cool! It's the first time that the prediction map has actaully changed, as far as I remember!

The last NH poll gives Kerry a 15 point lead there, so it certainly appears competitive to me.

[Gustaf]

you guys talking about the switch of colours for the democratic primary so Kerry is red, Edwards green and Dean purple?

I think they are talking about the map that lists the median of everyone's general election predictions.  Until now, it has always been identical to the 2000 results.

Spot on.

[Gustaf]

'Kerry will love'?

it supposed to be 'lose', right?

[Gustaf]

what are you talking about man? it says lose *shifty eyes*

no love of course, Kerry is gonna have a sex scandal involving Hillary!!!!!

That's not a very nice mental image...

[Gustaf]

Those are indeed some good points. Thanks for sharing...

[Gustaf]

It seems like the question of reliabilty in polls always pop up...I tried to explain some of the basics before, Angus, I think it was, did it as well in a more pedagogic way. Than my way that is, not trying to bash you...

Basically, you jsut have to use your common sense when it comes to statistics, most of it is more or less self-explanatory, as long as we're talking general guidelines, as with most of these thinga. It's quantifying them that is the hard part...  

[Gustaf]

Yes, VORLON, excellent information on polls.  Can you share any websites where one can find these polls?

Three sites that list a lot of polls..

From waaaaaaay to the left...

http://prorev.com/amline.htm

From waaaaaaay to the right...

www.realclearpolitics.com

Just the numbers...

www.pollingreport.com

Do you need to pay anything at any of these sites?

[Gustaf]

no

Good then.

[Gustaf]

Foreign policy? The economy? Culture wars?

I consider Kerry a weak candidate--too many votes on big issues based on political expediency--but what does Bush campaign on.

The Iraq War was based on fraud and exploded the deficit.

To the extent the tax cuts have affected the economy, it's been good for the rich and not helpful for middle class workers.

Bush has mismanaged the economy, although Kerry doesn't have much credibility on fiscal discipline.

Bush can run on his Gay marriage amendment, but I detect a lack of sincerity. Bush only believes in the amendment when it's good politics. This sort of duplicity enrages the TBs.

Bush will suffer from depressed turnout and outright defection by social reactionaries.

The big business people are going to defect because of the deficit and a loopy foreign policy.

With Bush's credibility shot, he will have trouble across the country. I predict he will lose at least one state the GOP has won in the last three presidential elections. Virginia? Indiana? one of the Carolinas?

Bush doesn't have to worry about his base - either cultural conservatives or business people - for one big reason:  the alternative is so horrible.  The conservatives see that two or three Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the next President, and the business people see that Kerry will raise their taxes enormously.  For all Republicans, a Bush victory is vital.  

I think vital is a bit of an overstatement. Politicians have relatively little effect, moreso in the US than anywhere else.

[Gustaf]

Bush doesn't have to worry about his base - either cultural conservatives or business people - for one big reason:  the alternative is so horrible.  The conservatives see that two or three Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the next President, and the business people see that Kerry will raise their taxes enormously.  For all Republicans, a Bush victory is vital.  

I think vital is a bit of an overstatement. Politicians have relatively little effect, moreso in the US than anywhere else.

A change from the Bush administration to a Kerry administration would mean a turnaround in foreign policy. The people advising the President in national security, a completely appointed area, would be completely different.

Ywah, I agree foreign policy might change some, but most politicians are rather pragmatic and end up doing very much the same things anyway. Especially in the US, since you're so big, have a realtively weak goverment and a lot of checks and balances in the system.

[Gustaf]

Good points Firefly

Whenever the Right promise Tax Cuts they mean big tax cuts for the rich... and maybe a very small one for normal people.
This is morally wrong.

The following is the actual distribution of who pays what it terms of taxes:

Percentage of Total Federal & Estate Taxes paid by Income Quintile      
Congressional Budget Office - 2002 Taxation Year   
   
Top 10%       69%
9th Quintile      14%
8th Quintile      8%
7th Quintile      6%
6th Quintile      4%
5th Quintile      3%
4th Quintile      1%
3rd Quintile      -0.6%
2nd Quintile      -1.7%
Bottom 10%      -2.4%

Negative numbers indicate a net refund, where variouis credits refunded exceed that amount of tax actually paid.

You seem to feel the current distribution to be unfair.

Please provide the taxation distrubution that you believe would be fair.

For example, the top 10% currently pay 69% of the nations tax burden - what do you believe would be a "fair" number?

The bottom 50% of the population pays about 4% of the tax burden - what % would you feel would be appropriate?

This is a serious question - not rhetorical - I would honestly like your answer...

Cool Ayn Rand picture. I got a number of friends who are Rand-fanatics. Odd map also...