2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Gustaf]

Gustaf I like your signature. The Oscar Wilde quote though sure doesnt hold up with Kerry. Being consistent isn't one of Kerrys strongpoints. Also, when is the last time a senator, one whos spent any time in the senate, has been elected President. J.F.K. was often out so skip him.

Thanks. Are you saying that liking THAT quote is not consistent with supporting Kerry? I won't state the obvious answer to that...

[Gustaf]

Vorlon - your map interests me.  Cool to see a map that has a GOP win without FL or OH.  Why do you think the GOP will win Oregon and more particularly Washington, while losing Florida, Ohio, and WV?

Not to mention losing New Hampshire...maybe he's doing a 'Miami'..

[Gustaf]

States Rights-
The only way to responsibly reduce taxes is to cut services as well.  I think that we should, as Chairman Greenspan suggested, eliminate Social Security and Medicare and make the tax cuts permanent, eliminate the FICA while we're at it.  Then revenues are reduced to $1.3t and outlays are reduced to $1.4t plus the cost of war.  We could easily make up the other $100b in loophole closings and cross-purpose program elimination.

That would go over like a lead ballon? I think thats a little extreme. Although, I dont believe in this "Social Security Trustfund", aren't the social security checks that old folks receive now the Social Security Taxes that the younger working people are paying now? How would their be any Trustfund in that case?

If they didn't save money for retirement, too bad, let them starve. They would probably be needy-greedy Democrats anyway...

[Gustaf]

Yes the economy, the jobs everything being bad is because of the President. I forgot Companies that are laying people off are run by Individual CEOs and that individuals buy into the stock market. I'm sorry but everything cant be blamed on the President. What about Alan Greenspan, doesnt he have more power over the economy then Bush?

Not really, he rules the interest rate, but that's not the only thing affecting the economy.

[Gustaf]

So many things affect the economy I find it hard to believe it can be blamed on one man and one man alone. Companies dont follow lockstep with the president. Companies are going to layoff or hire whether or not the President says jobs need to be increased. Just like where I work our boss tries to tell us "We havent got a cost of living raise because Republicans are in office." What a bunch of horse mess. Our companys profits have increased 5% every quarter since Bush took office. And they continue growing. Too many people try to blame the President for all the woes of our country.

Well, that's politics for you. Politicians, luckily, have much less effect on things than people think, especially when it comes to the economy.

[Gustaf]

And if you want to take it another step, the congress actually has more authority and influence then the President does. Gustaf have you ever traveled to the US?

No, but I will after I finish my current level of studies. Why?

[Gustaf]

Just curious is all. I recommend touring Florida first. ;-)

Lol...I'll probably go to the Northeast first, since most places one would want to visit are nicely clustered there...but I should of course try and visit all states before I die...with an exception or two...

[Gustaf]

The Northeast? Hope you come armed. lol. BTW how do you do the graphic smiles?

You use combinaitons of :s and )s mostly. If you quote this post you'll see how they're written: etc

[Gustaf]

The Northeast? Hope you come armed. lol. BTW how do you do the graphic smiles?

You use combinaitons of :s and )s mostly. If you quote this post you'll see how they're written: etc

ok I was putting a - between the ; and the )

Ah, OK, now it works.

[Gustaf]

Fair analysis Vorlon, but just to play Devil's advocate for a little while:

Oregon poll: Kerry +5%, with Nader at 5%

Wasington poll: Kerry +12%

Wisconsin poll: generic Dem +16%

Iowa poll: Kerry +7%

Minnesota poll: +2%

[Gustaf]

Iowa, NH and Minnesota will *probably* switch, the rest wll probably stay the same, IMHO. That said, there is a hell of a long time to go...

It's way too much time left to make accurate predictions of swing states. However, I do think that Florida will be a tossup again, and that both the pacific and the Mid-West will be stronger for Kerry than people think. I also think Kerry has a chance in the South-West, but those states still lean Bush. I think Kerry will have a much harder time in the rust belt than people expect. PA could go for Bush.

[Gustaf]

I want to see a 72 or 84 style election this year just for a laugh. Man I'd love that.

Not a chance. Or at least almost not a chance.

[Gustaf]

do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom

'Freedom is slavery'...

The EC only makes sense if one supposes that Americans are Texans, Montanians, North Dakotians, South Dakotians, New Mexicans, etc rather than Americans. Otherwise, it's just unfair and stupid.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.

I agree weith you that there is ALWAYS a local factor in each race.  West Virginia in 2000 is the easy example where a local issue trumps the national trend.

I disagree with you that it happens a lot, and to a great degree.  If Kerry or Bush were to get up say 10 points in this race, you would find that in the majority of states they would do 8-12 points better than their party did in 2000.

Granted, there are also regional factors - I suspect that Kerry will do better in the NorthEast than Gore did by  a few points, and worse than Gore in the South by a few points...

I would compare the effects in any individual state to a guy in a rowboat battling the tide... You can make a small difference at the state level, but if the tide is not going you way, usually it will not matter...

Actually, a national swing of 10% would HAVE to correspond to a swing of 8-12% in the majority of states, since the average would have to be 10%...if you see what I mean, lol.

[Gustaf]

Bush wins 52% to Kerrys 48%. Etch it. People don't forget 9/11 or terrorism. Dont depend on the polls.

I don't know who you're talking to...the majority of voters care more about domestic issues than terrorism.

[Gustaf]

do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom

'Freedom is slavery'...

The EC only makes sense if one supposes that Americans are Texans, Montanians, North Dakotians, South Dakotians, New Mexicans, etc rather than Americans. Otherwise, it's just unfair and stupid.

Actually Texas is underrepresented in the ec.  Also, I don't think there should be an 'i' in North or South Dakotans or Montanans.  

I wasn't saying that Texas was overrepresented, did I?

And I honestly have no idea how to spell North Dakotans correctly, I just went with my gut feeling...

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.

I agree weith you that there is ALWAYS a local factor in each race.  West Virginia in 2000 is the easy example where a local issue trumps the national trend.

I disagree with you that it happens a lot, and to a great degree.  If Kerry or Bush were to get up say 10 points in this race, you would find that in the majority of states they would do 8-12 points better than their party did in 2000.

Granted, there are also regional factors - I suspect that Kerry will do better in the NorthEast than Gore did by  a few points, and worse than Gore in the South by a few points...

I would compare the effects in any individual state to a guy in a rowboat battling the tide... You can make a small difference at the state level, but if the tide is not going you way, usually it will not matter...

Actually, a national swing of 10% would HAVE to correspond to a swing of 8-12% in the majority of states, since the average would have to be 10%...if you see what I mean, lol.

I guess my point is that things do tend to move on a national basis.  

It is very hard to imagine a scenario where Bush GAINED 10 points in Michigan and LOST 10 points in Pennsylvania.  

The national trend is certainly not perfect - you could gain 10 in Georgia and only gain 7 in Louisiania, but it is rare for states to go in the opposite direction - the direction is almost always the same, sometimes the pace is just a little different...

The only real exception is when you have a small state, with a big issue - IE West Virginai and coal in 2000, and perhaps Nevada and the nuclear waste depository in 2004...?

Yeah, I know, and I agree with you.

[Gustaf]

What the truth is is that Democrats dont want the small states to count because they have their hands in the backpockets of CA, NY, and all the North East. If they got a popular vote and no electoral college it would be a huge boost to their party. They just want to destroy the constitution for their own political game. It's sad really.

It wouldn't be a huge boost, that's ridiculous. And the small state's voters would still count, just as much as those of the big states. The issue is whether people should be discriminated against on the basis of their residence or not.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf

I note in your signature that you are a self discribed "libertarian with conservative leanings"

Ignoring for the moment the mental gymnastics that being Libertarian AND conservative implies.. how the ^&##@! does that equate to supporting John Kerry?

Kerry is many things... a Libertarian is NOT one of them...  I am not saying Bush is a Libertarian either .. I just can't get my brain around Kerry, Libertarian, and Conservative happily co-existing....

Heh, lol...I use the word 'libertarian' to not confuse all you Americans too much...I would be a liberal conservative in Europe, but that would be even worse for you, wouldn't it?

I am not happy with Kerry, believe me, I will not be very happy OR sad regardless of the out-come of this election. But I really don't trust GWB, I think he's a fake. Also, he's messing up the image of the US abroad, making it a hated country again. Kerry is way too weak too inflict too much damage when it comes to terrorism, etc. And having a Dem president and a Rep congress is good since it locks them all to an extent. But I could go more in-depth in you want, though I'm no sure this is the thread for it.

[Gustaf]

Does anybody know where Kerry stands on any issue? If so I'd like to know. He was against all executions, now he's only for executing terrorists. He was for the current Iraq conflict, now hes against it? Sounds like all we have here is a political vulture. Ted Kennedy has even voted against some of his proposals.

This is primarily a thread for the user predictions we add, so if you wanna bash Kerry you could start a thread for it. I know this goes off topic at times anyway, but we can at least try, you know?

[Gustaf]

My new prediction:

Now, let's not be pessimistic, surely Kerry could do better than that?

[Gustaf]

yeah.  losing OR & NH seem unlikely to me.  I've been thinking about moving NH into definite dem territory, away from battleground territory, myself.

I was being sarcastic, but ,maybe you are too...

[Gustaf]

I was being sarcastic, although I do think Kerry will win NH for sure, barring major world events between now & November.

New Hampshire does seem fairly likely to go for Kerry. But I'd want a reliable poll before I get too certain abut it.

[Gustaf]

We've discussed this already on another board. Going to a direct popular vote would be an absolute disaster, because in that case the large cities would pick the president. Look at how much Gore won just from big metropolitan areas alone. We may as well not even have a voting system if it went to direct popular vote. I know I'd quit voting.

While I concede the EC isn't going anywhere...

Are you saying that direct election would be less legitimate? Why?

He got some odd views...but look at his username. It speaks for itself on this issue.

[Gustaf]

You're close to me politically Vorlon, judging from that post.