2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.

The Democrats won over 60% of the vote in WV in the last congressional election.
Every single elected state-wide official in WV has a little D next to his/her name.

The Republicans have a machine in Arkansas outside the Ozarks?
Huckabee is the only popular Republican in the state... and his popularity is waning.
TN is going to close(as always. Amazing what a bit of good ol' fashioned sectional voting can do...)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I always thought it looked more like an "I" (with large top and a large bottom)[although the bottom runs into Pittsburgh and suburban Philly and some of those counties can go democratic so its more accurate to call it a T-the entire stateline with New York goes Republican, Erie county on occasion as well)

PA politics is confusing at times. In national elections for president, the SE has voted for the more liberal (socially) candidate as long as he doesn't talk about borrowing and spending (fiscally moderate or even conservative) the West is the opposite. So in congressional elections (especially now that the GOP has drawn the districts to favor them) the East votes for Moderate, fiscally conservative republicans [free traders] or similarly positioned democrats [you don't get a liberal democrat outside the city for congressional races] while out west the republicans and democrats tend to be protectionist, socially conservative candidates.

Thats why the SE where the counties around philly are very republican, yet vote for Clinton and Gore into the 60% range while the west is predominantly democratic around Pittsburgh and Erie yet has been voting Republican as of late. So I doubt congressional candidates will be hurt since they likely share the views of their consituents. Bush however, (who was supposed to be a free trade guy) might get hurt out west.


Just a hunch though...11 months is still pretty early to predict.

The area where Democrats NEVER get elected looks like a Z.
PA is a weird state, that's certainly true, but I've always liked it anyway... probably because it's so quirky...

I'm still a bit confused as to where the Scranton/Wilkes-Barr area fits in to the East-T-West model... is it a piece of the West in the East???

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democrat leaning state by 15%
Stop being partizan please...

BTW Dean has not won a single vote yet.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Evidence? Dean hasn't said anything nasty about Bill has he?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Arkansas will depend on the candidate, Clark would win AR in a cakewalk, but I'm not sure about the others YET.

BTW please drop the Northern Liberal argument, McGovern and Mondale were both from the midwest.

Bush won't win PA now and is in big trouble in WV.
But he doesn't really need them.
He does need OH and it's a toss-up now...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

With polls you should never read the headline figure, look for % undecided+other and adjust accordingly.
Also check out the outfit that conducted the poll for bias, and adjust accordingly.
Then accept that polls are a waste of time.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bush IS on 55% in Ohio, but only 49% in Mississippi, and only 51% in Georgia.
He is actually polling worse in much of the Deep South than nationally.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...

At least you weren't lying...
Bush is under 50% in Alabama but it shouldn't be a concern.  The Dem only has 30% there, and a candidate like Dean wouldn't have a prayer.  dean really can only make a run at Arkansas, Florida, and maybe Tennessee and Louisiana in the south.

You mean Mississippi? the only poll from AL was by an outfit I have never heard of and is outdated. But then I always used to get MS and AL confused as well...

The methodology of that poll is interesting and quite useful in that it shows the Incumbent's score and the score of people certain to vote against the incumbent, but also the people who will probably vote against the incumbent in a seperate list.

Most people seem to think that Dean is certain to be the Democrat nominee so a generic score is probably closer to a Dean score than one for any other candidate.

Bush seems(if the polls are even vaugely accurate) to have some problems in the Deep South at the moment(but why? Iraq causualties? poverty? general anti-incumbency? other?) and It'll be interesting to see if it stays this way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I do it on balance of probabilities(ie: current polling shows that Bush might struggle to hold MS but I'm not sure either way, so I put it as a low D on the prediction map but tossup on the confidance map)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

At the moment it looks as though Bush is polling worse in the Deep South than in most of the rest of the U.S(and this came as a shock to me. Mind you the last governor in the Deep South to be re-elected was Mike Foster in 1999...)
My map is also based on the presumption that the Dems will fight over the economy and possibly causalities in Iraq, not on social issues(and if they want to win that's what they have to do)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I wasn't talking about polls here, but real polls.  In recent weeks PA, FL, MO, NH and many others have come out with Bush in a huge lead over Dean or Clark or whomever.

I've warned you about this before: Do NOT look at leads! The key number is BUSH's number, not Deans, not Clarks.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes last re-elected was in 1999, and I guess that is if you don't count FL being in the deep south.

However the GOP did just elect governors in SC, MS, AL, AR (Hey this was a reelection in 2002) so to just say reelection is a bit misleading.

Neither FL or AR is in the Deep South.
Whoever they actually voted for is immaterial.
The point is that within two years every state in the Deep South has elected a governer from a different party than the incumbents.
Facts are Facts.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It is what it is.  I' ve said on this board that i'd love to believe that Bush is going to surprise in Massachusetts or Maryland or Rhode Island.  However, I'm a realist, and there just is no evidence in past voting statistics that this will happen.  I'd rather Rove run his campaign based on what is doable and not what he'd like to happen.  I'm afraid the Dean people are engaging in wishful thinking.  In fact, I know they are.

Not comparing like with like are you?(except possibly Maryland)
The GOP do not dominate any Southern state in the way that the Democrats dominate MA or RI.
They do dominate places like UT or WY in that way though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That article you posted is terrible.
No sound analysis, plenty of guesswork, lot's of bad witnesses(using a Republican on a chatroom?) bad facts, out of date(a special election in KY-6 could go either way, the Dems are going after KY-3 again... oh and note that what gains the GOP made in the east in 1999 was REVERSED in 2003), badly written, generalises things...

Oh and does not mention that Bush is polling worse in KY than average(can't let those annoying facts get in the way of yet another "ohh... the Democratic Party is dead..." article can we?)

And I don't care who wrote it: bad is bad.

[turns off rant mode]

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would definately consider Arkansas int eh deep south.

What do you define as the deep south?

SC, GA, AL, MS, LA; the coastal plain basically.
Much of Arkansas is hilly so is geographically "Upper South", it also has a relatively(ie: for the South) low population of African-Americans and the race card is rarely played(in comparison to the rest of the South)
It also sits "on top" of Lousiana

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah... but the article was about Kentucky in general not a specific presidential election(I would guess that W would carry KY-6 even if he loses KY. Balance of probabilities again)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've never really thought of Arkansas as part of the Deep South anyway(it's part in part out), so whatever theory I might have I've not twisted geography.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But deep south is not just about geography but cultural and values and way of life.

Even if you use that Arkansas is not in the Deep South(parts are, most are not)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I suspect that our friend from across the pond continues to underestimate the cultural and social conservative nature of the South and it's effect on southern voting patterns for one very understandable reason.  He has never been exposed to anything like that kind of conservativism in Britain and can't begin to identify with it.  This is understandable.  I doubt anything like it even exists among the tories.  There's nothing like it in Great Britain and it's hard to give a lot of credense to something you can't identify with.

Nope.
I'm perfectly well aware that the GOP has been able to manipulate Southern voters with "wedge issues", and unless the Democrats campaign on economic issues they don't have a prayer in the Deep South.
Also we DO have race-baiters and gay-bashers over here.
Heard of Norman Tebbit(aka: "The Chingford Skinhead") or Enoch Powell("Rivers of Blood") before?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I never said that Bush is either.
What I said was that the people who exploit predjudice in the Deep South(eg. Trent Lott) are similer to people like Powell and Tebbit.
I did NOT call Bush a race-baiter OR a gay-basher.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh we have some VERY socially conservative areas over here...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have never really considered Arkansas to be part of the deep South.

An Agreement!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aha...
...although I hear that Jmf and Migrendel might come to an agreement on something...