|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 08, 2020, 05:19:09 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 User Predictions - Discussion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 91 92 93 [94] 95 96 97 98 99 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 826854 times)
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,244
United States


P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2325 on: July 23, 2004, 05:06:11 pm »

The twelfth amendment clearly sets a different standard for the quorom required for when the Senate votes for the Vice President, so it is reasonable that the explict wirding given there about needing "a majority of the whole Number" means exactly what it says, namely that 51 Senators would be required.  Even a 50-49 vote would be insufficient in my opinion as 50 is not a majority of 100.  However since the Senate has never elected a Vice President, there is no precedent to call upon in this case.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2326 on: July 23, 2004, 07:07:07 pm »

However since the Senate has never elected a Vice President, there is no precedent to call upon in this case.

Actually they did once...1836.  Some southeren electors wouldn't vote for Van Buren's running mate, something to do with having a slave as a common-law wife and raising their children as free.  So that VP election did go the Senate, where the end result was not a tie.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2327 on: July 24, 2004, 03:19:26 pm »
« Edited: September 05, 2004, 04:13:04 pm by CARLHAYDEN »

This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at the 2004 Prediction page.  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.

The 2004 presidenial election is one of the most difficult to predict for a variety of reasons.

First, the normal 36 year cycle is NOT occuring largely due to demographic changes over the last forty years.  Among those changes are:
 
Longevity has increased even as the birth rate has dropped.  The result is that the actual electorate (those who do vote), as opposed to the voting age population (VAP), is unusually high by historical standards.  

Further, due to illegal immigration, a significant proportion of the VAP is ineligible (legally) to vote.

Additionally, the percentage of the VAP which is disqualified for voting based on felony convictions (where full civil rights have not been restored) is at a historical high.

Second, the public opinion polls available to the general public are more defective today than at any time in over fifty years for a couple of reasons:

Some 'poll' are intentionally designed to return the result desired by the entity paying for the 'poll'.  Such polls include, LA Times, CBS, Princeton Associations and some state polls (in Arizona, my home state, the 'crank' poll is notorious for overstating Democrat preference).

Other polls are unintentionally slanted either in reaction to the suprisijng 2000 results (a number of polls significantly increased the black percentage of respondents in their surveys in reaction to that election) or because of the changes in the telecommunications industry (an analogy would be if you only polled people who watch over the air television only to determine television viewing preferences, and excluded those who watch cable or satellite television).

In my view, the key data to examine:

(a)  the economic statistics (which is a good, abeit imperfect indicator),

(b) partisan voter registration data (available in most states outside the south and border area), which has been a very good indicator of election results,

(c) the 2002 and 2003 election results (a fair, abeit imperfect indicator),

(d) nomination data (a good indicator),

(e) technical campaign data (fundraising, organizational efforts, campaign coherency, etc.),
which are good indicators in close elections, but sometimes difficult to quantify.

(f) likeability (a good indicator in close elections). and

(g) historical voting patterns (a very good indicator except in lanslide elections).

As has previously been noted, if the economy continues along the path established in the last two quarters, every president in the last fifty years with such statistics seeking reelection has been reelected.

If you check the voter registration statistics (available in the links to the states), you will find that in more than ninety per cent of the states with partisan registration (this includes most of the states), the Republicans have improved their relative ratio to the Democrats.

In the 2002 and 2003 elections, the Republicans did far better than expected.  They not only retained control of the House, they regained control of the Senate, and did far better than expected in the Gubenatorial elections.

Every President who has sought reelection without serious challenge in his own party over the past half century has been reelected (Clinton in 1996, Reagan in 1984, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964 and Eisenhower in 1956).  Every president who sought reelection and faced serious challenge within his party lost (Bush in 1992, Carter in 1980, and Ford in 1976).

While Kerry did far better in fundraising than is usually the case for challengers, Bush raised more money than Kerry.  Moreover, Kerry has not really gotten his act together organiztionally while Bush has one of the best organized campaigns in recent years.  Further, while Bush has a relatively coherent campaign, Kerry has a major difficulty trying to square his record in the Senate with positions palatable to enough voters to be elected.

In the end, where major trends are not going in one particular way and the candidates are not seen as unqualified, likeability has a significant factor in ultimate voting decision.  Every source I have seen shows that the voting public finds Bush more likeable than Kerry.

Finally, except in landslide elections (and I have yet to see any credible source suggest that 2004 is likely to be a landslide), historical voting results give a good project future results (given sophisticated modeling).  Please note that the last Democrat nominee to win more than half the vote was Carter in 1976 (with just 50.08% of the vote).  Since that election Republican nominees have exceeded fifty per cent of the vote on three occasions (1980, 1984, and 1988).  So, those who suggest that Kerry will do better than Carter did in 1976 are, IMHO, blowing smoke.

Given these points of analysis, I project that, the total presidential popular vote will total approximately 108,200.000, and that Bush will receive 51.10 % of that vote, Kerry will receive 44.97 % of that vote, Nader will receive 1.51 % of the vote, Badnarik 1.06 % of the vote, Cobb will receive 0.71 % of the vote, Peroutka will receive 0.43 % of the vote, with other candidates (the usual menagarie) approximatly 0.22 % of the vote.

My electoral college map is posted in the predictions section.  A number of states are either marginal or lean to one candidate.  However, the math is such that it is virtually impossible (unless a major catastrophe occurs in the next three and half months) for either the electoral college or the popular vote to go for Kerry.

I fully expect the partisans of Kerry, and those on the left in general to howl about this posting, but I suggest they get it out of their system now, as it will reduce their frustration on the night of the election when the cold hard data is accumulated.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2328 on: July 24, 2004, 03:24:45 pm »

Please note that the last Democrat nominee to win more than half the vote was Carter in 1976 (with just 50.08% of the vote).  

Clinton would have done it twice had Perot not ran.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2329 on: July 24, 2004, 04:35:17 pm »

Notice, that except for my prediction, I cited facts.

If we want to go into "would have." I suggest that if Sen. Gramm's campaign had not screwed up and alienated the Govenor of Louisiana, he would not have lost the contest there to Buchanan.  He would have been a far more formidable candidate than Dole.  

Dole was a lousy candidate (Republicans, when not in front of a reporter, generally referred to him contemptously as "senator taxman").  He also alienated social conservatives.  

The fact is that the people who voted for Perot could have voted for Clinton, and chose not to so cast their vote.  

Speculation is interesting, but facts are more reliable.

Logged
ATFFL
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,756
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2330 on: July 24, 2004, 05:22:34 pm »

Please note that the last Democrat nominee to win more than half the vote was Carter in 1976 (with just 50.08% of the vote).  

Clinton would have done it twice had Perot not ran.

Unlikely.  Without Perot Bush would have likely won 50-51% of the vote.  The majority of Perot's support came from Bush.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2331 on: July 24, 2004, 05:35:35 pm »

Its really hard to say.

In 1992, a lot of conservatives were very angry with Bush.

They didn't want to vote for Clinton, but they wanted to punish Bush for his betrayal.

Suggests that many of the Perot voters would have declined to vote in the Presidential election (a few would have voted for the Libertarian candidate).

Note, that while Bush was getting a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Goldwater (or any other Republican candidate in fifty years), Republicans had a net gain in House seats.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2332 on: July 24, 2004, 08:19:24 pm »


Unlikely.  Without Perot Bush would have likely won 50-51% of the vote.  The majority of Perot's support came from Bush.

LOL...so with a recession loomingm Bush does nearly as well as he did in 1988?  I don't think so.

That also means 13-14% of Perot's 19% comes goes to Bush, which leaves...2% for Clinton and 3% stay home?

I would say Bush gets 1-2% closer in the PV without Perot but is still beaten soundly.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2333 on: July 24, 2004, 08:20:14 pm »

Also, it is a downright fact that Clinton would have got 50% in 1996 without Perot.  It's a fact.
Logged
ATFFL
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,756
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2334 on: July 24, 2004, 10:27:14 pm »

People percieve the economy as it was 6 months earlier.  While not good, the economy was not in recession then.

Perot also doubled the number of attacks on Bush.  One of his goals was to keep Bush from winning re--election.

Finally, we need to discuss your definition of what a "fact" is.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2335 on: July 25, 2004, 10:58:27 am »
« Edited: July 25, 2004, 11:02:36 am by CARLHAYDEN »

First, thanks for the comments.

Second, I do agree that Clinton would probably have gotten slightly over fifty per cent without Perot in 1996, but he would not have gotten a majority of the Perot vote, and his reelection percentage would have been lower than Reagan in 84, Nixon in 72, Johnson in 64, and, Eisenhower in 56.

However, it would have been the lowest sucessful reelection percentage since 1948 (when Truman also didn't get a majority of the vote).
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2336 on: July 25, 2004, 11:13:41 am »

Carl,

Tell me what you think of this.

Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2337 on: July 25, 2004, 11:54:57 am »

In general, quite plausible. however, I believe New Mexico is more likely to vote Republican than Washington, and Iowa more likely than Michigan.

The bottom line is that Bush has the hearland advantage.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2338 on: July 25, 2004, 12:00:11 pm »

In general, quite plausible. however, I believe New Mexico is more likely to vote Republican than Washington, and Iowa more likely than Michigan.

The bottom line is that Bush has the hearland advantage.

I need the order in which the states are called on election night to make a proper analysis. If you can provide that I would be grateful. Smiley
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2339 on: July 25, 2004, 03:19:37 pm »


Kerry does better in Iowa than Vermont?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2340 on: July 25, 2004, 03:52:52 pm »

Vermont may be close.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2341 on: July 25, 2004, 04:09:52 pm »

In general, quite plausible. however, I believe New Mexico is more likely to vote Republican than Washington, and Iowa more likely than Michigan.

The bottom line is that Bush has the hearland advantage.

I need the order in which the states are called on election night to make a proper analysis. If you can provide that I would be grateful. Smiley

The "order" in which states are "called" by the television networks will depend upon a number of factors.

First, will they wait until the polls are closed in a state before calling it, as they have pledged?  As you know, Florida was "called" for Gore before polls had closed in the panhandle by a couple of networks.

Second, it depends upon how good the technical analysis is of the data used by a particular network.  

Third, while the networks got 'egg' on their faces for their error in Florida four years ago, there always is a tendency to want to be 'first.'

Fourth, don't be concerned by the first hour to two hours of raw vote as the initial vote will be coming in from the eastern time zone (Kerry's strongest) and from the big cities (rural votes come in latter.

Another factor to consider in the raw vote totals is whether it includes 'absentee' voting, which is looming larger in every voting cycle.  Some jurisdictions count those votes first (since they're already avaialable at the central facilities), while others count them last (alleging delays in verification), and others in the middle (when the machines have excess counting capacity.

Expect the following jurisdictions to be "called" for Kerry about a minute after the polls close:

District of Columbia
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Rhode Island

Expect the following jurisdictions to be "called" for Bush about two minutes after their polls close:

Alaska
Idaho
Kansas
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Utah
Wyoming

Note the the bulk of Kerry "quick" victories are in the Eastern time zone, whereas Bush's "quick" vitories are in the Central/Western and latter (Alaska) time zones.

Its one of the few times I watch a few minutes of Dan Rather is election night.

Its funny to watch Rather bubbling over joyously announcing the early Democrat victories, and then becoming more and more glum as tallies from the hearland roll in to bury his delusions.


Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2342 on: July 25, 2004, 04:15:05 pm »

I believe it starts

Indiana
Kentucky
Florida
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2343 on: July 25, 2004, 04:58:56 pm »


You asked about, "calling," which means stating making a determination which way a state will actually end up supporting, not when the election polls have closed.

BTW, since Florida is in two time zones, the closing time for polling places differs (after their last fiasco, the networks are going to treat Florida with kid gloves).

I expect that both Indiana and Kentucy will be 'called' by the networks for Bush about a five minutes after the polls close in those states.
Logged
Floridude
Rookie
**
Posts: 177


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2344 on: July 25, 2004, 11:56:51 pm »

If I recall, I remember from four years ago fairly early in the evening seeing a map of the whole US blank except for Indiana and Kentucky, which were red.  I also recently saw a picture which confirmed this thought.  My question to you therefor is-Why would anyone call Indiana and Kentucky (both about 15 point  Bush victories) before they call rhode island or Boston (both 30 point Dem victories).

Interestingly, who begins election night with a meaningless lead will depend on whether the networks call the southeast or the northeast first.

Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2345 on: July 26, 2004, 10:21:44 am »

Oh, that's simple.

The closing time on polls is earlier in Indiana and Kentucky than Rhode Island.

This 'closing time' is historical and dates back to around 1910 when both Indiana and Kentucky were largely rural.

Generally, farmers were 'early to bed and early to rise,' so the polling times followed their schedule.

Rhode Island by contrast was largely urban and industrial at the time, so later polling hours (closing times) were provided so that industrial laborers could cast their ballots after they left work.

As an interesting side light, in New Hampshire, a township by the name of Dixville Notch, accounces its vote at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday morning.
Logged
Siege40
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,826


Political Matrix
E: -6.25, S: -4.26

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2346 on: July 26, 2004, 10:27:55 am »

This is going to sound rediculously stupid, but what's the date of the 2004 election?

Siege
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,153
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2347 on: July 26, 2004, 10:29:56 am »

This is going to sound rediculously stupid, but what's the date of the 2004 election?

Siege


November 2nd. If you're a Democrat it's on November 3rd. Wink
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2348 on: July 26, 2004, 11:50:43 am »
« Edited: July 26, 2004, 11:53:03 am by Boss Tweed »

1992:



Clinton's lead INCREASES by 2% after Perot drops out the first time.



Clinton's lead remains at 16% after Perot re-enters.

Also, as Perot climbs, Clinton's lead decreases, and as Perot tapers off at the end, Clinton's lead climbs.

I just don't see any evidence Perot hurt Bush in the polls.  The only argument you can make is if that you say Perot's ads hurt Bush, but there really is no evidence to support that claim.

I think we can safely say Perot had little effect.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,602


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2349 on: July 26, 2004, 12:23:34 pm »

Also, we have to remember that even though a lot of Perot's voters were conservatives they supported him over Bush BECAUSE they were unhappy with Bush and his broken tax pledge. They might well have refused to vote for him anyway, even if Perot wouldn't have been around.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 91 92 93 [94] 95 96 97 98 99 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines