2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[opebo]

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.

I notice he has Ohio as 'probable for Bush'!

[opebo]

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.

I notice he has Ohio as 'probable for Bush'!

He only has New Hampshire changing hands...how is Arkansas "very competitive"??

Yeah its a bit odd.. I think Arkansas is even more solid Bush than Missouri.  And New Hampshire seems likely to go Republican.  Actualy its a pretty odd map, but I'd like to know why he think Ohio is solid.

[opebo]

I've noticed that since the start of 'Kerrymania' the prediction page has seen more confident Democratic wins, and even the Republican wins have been scaled down. I hope I don't have to eat my hat, but those 'Bush wins everything but Vermont' predictions from before the new year seem pretty ridiculous now! My own predictions are biased i'll admit. Oh and hows about a 'final prediction' topic come November where the most accurate gets a free pat on the back! Come to mention it, did anyone here predict 2000 pretty much spot on? Right down to EV's? Raise your hands now. It would be nice to hear from you!

I think people have swung way too far in the direction of Democratic overconfidence now.  The reality is it will be close and that the electoral college favors Bush.

[opebo]

Yep, WV is for Bush so Kerry doesn't win.

I think with high unEmp rates, a high muslim population, and an unpopular Republican Governor, Ohio will swing to Kerry.

Kerry being from MA hurts him in NH, if anything.

LA is more socially conservative than AR.

Cool map Miami, I agree with it except I think Bush will get Ohio.  He has a chance at MN and WI too but mainly I would make the case for OH - muslims are not a significant voting population, and unemployment will be coming down.  Its only high in the 'Democrat' areas of the state anyway - central and southwestern OH is doing great.  The state is also very socially conservative - the gay marriage issue alone will ensure Bush wins it.

[opebo]

Hey All:

Looks like Kerry pulled off a squeaker in Wisconsin, and I think Edwards is becoming more of a threat with each passing day.  Howard Dean finished third and he is all but done, which is very disappointing.  But that's politics, and I guess it just wasn't his year.

After thinking it over I am going to shift my support to John Edwards.  I think the Dems have a better chance of beating Bush if he is the nominee.  Edwards has conservative leanings, but he is more of a populist now than he was before he went on the campaign trail.
His chances will also be much better if Clark is his running mate.  

Well thats that.  Sleep tight and keep watching the CNN.  
   

What conservative leanings does Edwards have?  The man's more of a socialist than Kerry.  

And no thanks on the CNN, I'll stick to FOX.

[opebo]

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!

Well we have a broader base among the upper-middle-class and the sort of 'just barely rich' class.  There are millions of old guys or their widows with a couple/few million $ in this country (mostly small businessmen), and I'd like to see a study on how many are GOP - probably nearly all.  Nothing like making your own money and noticing someone's trying to steal it from you to excite the political donation reflex.  These small businessmen and the 'young executive' corporate types are happy to cut checks for a couple thousand.  The main upper-middle class group that goes for Dems are lawyers.

[opebo]

Edwards is a moderate on social issues, while being the most left wing candidate on economic issues.
This is often called "Populism".

The worst of both worlds.

[opebo]

I wouldn't worry about "NASCAR dads"... the last time a lot of them voted would have been for Wallace in '68...

You're mocking precisely the kind of people who live in your adopted West Virginia.  But I suspect you know best for them.

[opebo]

Fascinating, NHpolitico - and this represents, given the date of the poll, a low point for Bush.  More likely to go up from here than down.  Still I think Kerry could campaign his way to more than 46% in Goremerica.  On the other hand he's unlikely to pick up anything Bush won in 2000.

[opebo]

I would trust a drunken farmer over a Zogby poll...

True, though most of the time his polls favor the Dem.

[opebo]

There are rumors that Roy Moore is going to run on the Constitution Party ticket for President.  Anyone have any predictions on a Bush vs. Kerry vs. Moore race?  Would Moore's candidacy put states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Utah into play?

Moore would not put any of the states you mentioned at risk.  Bush's margin will be big enough in AL and MS to absorb a few points for Moore.  It would have little or no effect in Utah.  However I guess it could have some effect in places like Florida or West Virginia, if they're close enough.

Remember, Southerners will dread a Kerry presidency, so even if they like Moore, they'll be careful how they vote.  The last time they screwed up in this way was voting for Perot in 92, and Bush senior was much less popular in the South than GW is.. in addition Kerry is more repulsive to Southerners than Clinton was in 92 (before they got to know him).  

[opebo]

Thank you, everybody.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

Wow, Missouri leans Democrat?  I doubt it.  Also it is a midwestern state btw.

Here's my view:

Solid Republican:

1) Texas
2) Mississippi
3) Kentucky
4) Alabama
5) South Carolina
6) Georgia
7) North Carolina
Virginia
9) Tennessee
10) Arkansas
11) Louisiana

Leans Republican:

1) Missouri
2) West Virgina
3) Florida

And Maryland is not a Southern state by any stretch - its a Mid-Atlantic and there for Northeastner state, which is why its reliable Democrat.

[opebo]

The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?

[opebo]

The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?

There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.

Purging criminals is a good policy.

[opebo]

The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?

There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.

There is proof of dead people voting in Missouri.

Some would say that there is proof of living, eligible voters being denied the vote in Florida.

If the acts are equally reprehensible, then we can resolve the moral weight by a simple comparison of frequencies: (a) how many dead people voted in MO, and for which party? versus (b) how many living people were WRONGLY denied the vote in FL, and for which party would they have voted for?

Is this a game you are comfortable playing?

The dead people voting in Missouri were of course voting Democrat, in inner city districts.  The Democrats are way ahead of the Republicans in the arena of voter fraud.  I was never prouder of Kit Bond than after the 2000 debacle when Ashcroft was 'defeated' - the worthy man nearly burst a blood vessel on the stump complaining of the Democrat shenanigans in the City of St. Louis.  

[opebo]

well the fact is, Republicans won Florida by 537 votes, if even only 25,269 of those 50,000 voted Democrat then they would have won Florida and the election, considering the majority of the 50,000 were Democrats, that wouldn't have been too hard

Well worth it to make sure no felons voted.  I for one don't want criminals voting.

[opebo]

but we have already established that a large proportion of these people were NOT criminals, they just had similar names to criminals. How would you feel if the majority of these had been Republicans and Al Gore had won because of this, I bet you would change your mind then.

Besides they were not Felons, they were EX-felons, they had committed a crime and served their debt to society, by denying these people the right to vote you treat them like second class citizens.

There's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'.  You're a felon for the rest of  your life - lucky to be out of prison, but still marked.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True
After all, the states that Dubya's economic [mis]managment have hit hardest have a tendency to be small...

Which states are those?  The states in worst shape economically are mostly big, and mostly Dem.  Such as CA, WA, MI, IL.. also a few medium ones like OR and MA.  Its interesting how poorly the West Coast has done for a long time now - even before Bush was president.  
The only Republican states in anything close to bad shape are the Carolinas and they're not in any doubt going for Bush.  WV and PA are doing fine, better than OH, which is not that bad.
But the overarching truth is the economy isn't that bad anyway.

[opebo]

I'm NOT talking about GDP growth etc.

Yeah I know, I was talking about the unemployment rate.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

[opebo]

Hah! A textile worker who loses his job and gets one at Walmart isn't going to be happy about it.

Textile workers didn't make much anyway - not a significantly better job than WalMart.  Besides, my point was that the Carolinas are so strongly Republican that even some unemployment-induced voting will not shift them.

[opebo]

It's not just about the money... you seem to lack a basic understanding of people sometimes...

I'll admit I have little experience with or understanding of either textile or WalMart workers - though I do occasionly shop at Supercenters when in the States (love the 24 hour convenience and insanely cheap prices).  But I will say neither group is likely to vote.   And if they did vote, they would certainly be unlikely to vote Republican anyway - so really not a big concern.

[opebo]

MortfromNY,

You're right, there's virtually zero chance of Bush winning the PV and losing the EC.

[opebo]

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.

[opebo]

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

[opebo]

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.