|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 07, 2020, 06:24:04 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 ... 90 91 92 93 94 [95] 96 97 98 99 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 826838 times)
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2350 on: July 26, 2004, 12:25:29 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.

I think Dazzleman said it best:  The very presence of a Perot-type candidate illustrated Bush's weaknesses.
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 #2351 on: July 26, 2004, 12:29:31 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.

I think Dazzleman said it best:  The very presence of a Perot-type candidate illustrated Bush's weaknesses.

Yep, that's it. Smiley
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 #2352 on: July 26, 2004, 12:57:02 pm »

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.

Well Boss, thanks for pointing out an example of the inaccuracy of a major poll.

While Gallup had Clinton at 49 in their closing poll, he actually received 43 per cent of the actual vote (a 6 point difference).

Gallup had Perot at 14 at closing whereas he received nineteen per cent of the popular vote, a five point differenct.

Further, when a number of studies looked at the Perot 92 vote, they found that in 1988 those same voters had split approximately as follows (minor differences in studies);

Bush 1988          -          60% of 1992 Perot votes
None in 1988        -        30% of 1992 Perot votes
Dukakis/other in 1988 - 10% of 1992 Perot voters

If you compare the combined Bush 92 and Perot 92 vote to the Bush 88 vote (go state by state, county by county if you wish) you will see a remarkable similiarity (Arkansas excepted).

The thing is that the 1992 Perot voters were very angry at Bush such that (according to the best projections I have seen), if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1992, they would have 'voted' as follows for President.

Other   10%
Clinton 20%
Bush    40%
None    30%

Further evidence of the normally pro-Republican nature of the Perot vote can be seen in the fact that although Bush in 92 had the lowest popular vote percentage of any Republican candidate since Alf Landon, Republicans actually gained in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2353 on: July 26, 2004, 01:04:59 pm »

Carl,

First, I'd like to knwo where you got your numbers from, then I will point some things out.
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 #2354 on: July 26, 2004, 02:20:33 pm »

40%-20%=20%

20%*19%=4%

So, Clinton still wins, though by a much smaller margin.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2355 on: July 26, 2004, 08:16:03 pm »

Lets assume carl's numbers are right.

Clinton/Gore: 48,858,570 (49.6%)
Bush/Quayle: 47,002,078 (47.7%)
Other: 2,639,382 (2.7%)
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2356 on: July 26, 2004, 08:23:14 pm »

Here's the map:


Clinton/Gore: 48,858,570 (49.6%); 346 EV's
Bush/Quayle: 47,002,078 (47.7%); 192 EV's
Other: 2,639,382 (2.7%); 0 EV's

So with Carl's numbers, Clinton wins convincingly.  Which is what I have been saying all along.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2357 on: July 26, 2004, 08:37:36 pm »

Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

Bush ain't winning no NY or CA as it stands now.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,415
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2358 on: July 26, 2004, 08:56:03 pm »

Kerry shouldn't have to spend resources there.  He'll show up for fundraiser after fundraiser in both states (as well as Texas), but beyond that would be stupid.  Any Bush spending would be climbing uphill when in other states he could be getting much more bang for his buck.
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 #2359 on: July 27, 2004, 12:41:39 am »

Carl,

First, I'd like to knwo where you got your numbers from, then I will point some things out.

As I said, they come from a number of studies done by a couple of Political Science professors assisted by graduate students.
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 #2360 on: July 27, 2004, 12:51:40 am »

Boss,

Your projection of the 92 Democrat vote closely mirrors the actual Democrat vote in both 96 and 2000,

So, it looks pretty credible to me.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2361 on: July 27, 2004, 05:17:50 am »

WOW Everybody should check out the NY Times Electoral college Map it is amazing how much info they have in this feature.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index.html
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2362 on: July 27, 2004, 05:28:40 am »

WOW Everybody should check out the NY Times Electoral college Map it is amazing how much info they have in this feature.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index.html
Look at the source they give, though!
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2363 on: July 27, 2004, 05:44:40 am »

True.  Congratulations Dave.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2364 on: July 27, 2004, 12:36:17 pm »


As I said, they come from a number of studies done by a couple of Political Science professors assisted by graduate students.

Carl,

Do you have the numbers for 1996?
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 #2365 on: July 27, 2004, 01:30:30 pm »

Unfortunately, I do not have such number.

Interesting that you should ask, as I asked one of the persons who produced one of the studies I cited, and he stated that there just wasn't enought interest in putting the time into replicating the 1992 Perot studies.

He had done some preliminary work and guardedly suggested that had Perot not been on the 1996 ballot, his votes would have gone as follows:

Others                         5%
Clinton                       10%
No vote for President 20%
Dole                            65%

While the Perot voters did not like Dole, they weren't as angry with him as they were at Bush.

Also, the Republicans had championed a number of Perots positions.

Dole had resigned from the Senate, of which they approved.

Clinton was perceived as big government (health care, gun control, opposition to term limits, etc.)

For most of the 1996 Perot voters, they would have "held their nose" and voted for Dole.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2366 on: July 27, 2004, 01:58:39 pm »

Using those numbers:


Clinton/Gore: 48,208,665 (50.9%); 348 EV's
Dole/Kemp: 44,454,266 (47.0); 190 EV's
Other: 1,995,389 (2.1); 0 EV's

Florida would have been extremely close, I have it as Clinton by .09%.
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 #2367 on: July 27, 2004, 02:53:48 pm »

Your maps looks about right.

The data I earlier provided was national data, and there were minor regional variations.  The data is, as I previously noted, better for 92 than 96.

Generally speaking, Perot voters in both elections were slightly more likely to back the Republican candidate in the South than elsewhere in the nation, so Florida would probably have been incredibly close in 1996.

Conversely, Perot voters in both elections were slightly more likely to back third party candidates in the West, so Nevada would have probably been incredibly close in 1996.

Perot voters in the midwest (particularly upper midwest) and northeast (particularly new england) were just a tiny bit more likely to back the Democrat candidate in both elections than nationally (probably woudn't have had a significant impact on any state).\
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 #2368 on: July 28, 2004, 11:43:18 pm »

Question, why is a state like Arkansas a Tossup? To me at least it seems pretty conservative. Arkansas is the only Battleground state that doesn't make much sense to me, can someone help me out?

Siege
Logged
ATFFL
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,756
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2369 on: July 29, 2004, 12:15:50 am »

Question, why is a state like Arkansas a Tossup? To me at least it seems pretty conservative. Arkansas is the only Battleground state that doesn't make much sense to me, can someone help me out?

Siege

Lingering Clintonism.
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 #2370 on: July 29, 2004, 12:23:31 am »

Actually, it depends upon you estimate of turnout.

If you expect heavy turnout in the black belt counties and normal turnout in the ozarks, then you could show Arkansas as competitive.

A normal turnout turnout would give Bush a clear lead.
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 #2371 on: July 29, 2004, 06:07:48 am »

Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

In 1992 Clinton did abot 10% better in Arkansas than he did nationally. In 1996 the difference was about 4.5% (Arkansas stayed the same, whereas Clinton's national vote went up from 43% to 49%).

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.
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 #2372 on: July 29, 2004, 08:32:28 am »

That's a good idea Gustaf, have Clinton campaign in Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana see if he can grab more votes for the Democrats.

Siege
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2373 on: July 29, 2004, 07:25:23 pm »

Here is my 'pre-bounce' projection:


Kerry 274
Bush 264
Logged
freedomburns
FreedomBurns
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2374 on: July 29, 2004, 09:01:38 pm »

Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

Well, what I have heard recently is that that has become exactly the plan.  Kerry has embraced Clinton and asked him to spend the next three months campaigning around the southern swing states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and such.  

I think it's a great idea.  Clinton still has the same old Elvis magic.  He gives a speech better than Monika Lewinski smokes a cigar. Wink  There are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks who say that this was one of Gore's (many) big errors.  The Lewinski/Jones debacle was still fresh and Gore thought that Clinton was too tainted by it to be much use as a campaigner.  I think that was a poor decision, but hindsight is 20-20.

Clinton is going to stump for Kerry, and I think it can only help.  The polls still show everything very tight.  The race is a close one and people are sticking to their guns.  It's too close to call right now.  I don't expect a big bump from the conventions, either.

freedomburns
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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