2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[jravnsbo]

 
 
Hardly a Republican chat room, it comes from the LA TIMES today.  And the times which went after Arnold and others and is HARDLY A conservative newspaper.  I can get the link if you want proof.


   

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 bad facts, out of date(a special election in KY-6 could go either way, the Dems are going after KY-3 again...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]

[jravnsbo]

Well i think most americans would consider it part of the deep south. But I guess then that wouldn't fit your theory.

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

[jravnsbo]

But as has been happening, KY has been trending to GOP with 2 GOP senators now.  pending the special election all congressional seats are gOP except 1 and he and the dem is retiring.  The Governorship which has been in dem hands for a LONG time has now switched and KY voted for Bush in 2000.

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)

[jravnsbo]

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

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.

[jravnsbo]

Yes I agree.

[jravnsbo]

me either, we were discussing how the south is culturally conservative.  I see that as beig hard to argue with, they don't call it the "bible belt" for nothing.

[jravnsbo]

got a link?

I read in an earlier post that the Electoral College Calculator on the John Edwards website was pretty good.  In truth, it's got a lot of inaccuracies, including Louisiana going Republican in 1992, South Dakota going Democratic in 1976, and New York going Republican in 1988.  So if you're looking for accurate trends, your best site is the "grayraven" site.

[jravnsbo]

and welcome to the forum

[jravnsbo]

sorry miami I should have been more specific, i meant if Brown had a link.  I have looked at the edwards map before, but good for others to see it.

Here is the link to Edwards' electoral college calculator:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

It is good, but the deluxe calculator here is the best one I have seen.

[jravnsbo]

something called grayraven?  maybe I can find it with google search .

[jravnsbo]

thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too

http://www.grayraven.com/ec

[jravnsbo]

I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. But not anymore...

[jravnsbo]

No wasn't accusing you of it.  Was thinking john and Mr Prez when I wrote that, and who knows there motives??

I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. But not anymore...

I have seriously not been doing this to boost post numbers. I am not quite THAT sad a person.   I have done a lot of politically oriented posting as well. You shouldn't accuse people of being non-serious like that. Everyone who has done a suffcient amount of serious posting has proven themselves, as I see it. There are people like John or mr_president who could be accused on only non-serious posts. Also, one could easily say that it is wrong to post a lot of short posts instead of fewer, but larger ones. I think few people here are in the forum to achieve high post numbers. Do you?

[jravnsbo]

But after 2 weeks fo free air time and 2 wins by Dean, the media coverage will be huge for him and will eliminate Clark too.

The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

[jravnsbo]

Miami Miami Miami, look at your last post.  Talk about leaving the door WIDE Open to a comment

Well Stu Rothenberg was on C-SPAN a while ago discussing Politics at American University and it was very informative check it out if you can on replay.

Detailed Presidential and Senate races.

[jravnsbo]

Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!

You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.

[jravnsbo]

wake up! Miami, your dreaming again!

Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!

You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.

Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.

[jravnsbo]

nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[jravnsbo]

Well clark took himself out of VP race today, slamming the door on the South for Dems.

NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.

[jravnsbo]

How do you see Oregon?  I see it as first tier too as it was clos ein 2000 also.  Plus GOP is pushing hard ther ei hear.

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

I think it's more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will be toss-ups than Florida.  I think that Bush will hold onto all the states he won in 2000, with a bigger margin of victory, and pick up some states that Gore carried that year.  The only question is how many.

The first "tier" of states that he could pick up are states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico, all of which he lost narrowly to Gore.  The next tier would be states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the third tier would be states like Illinois, New Jersey and California.

I don't know how far he'll go, but I don't think we'll be quibbling in 2004 over the same states that we quibbled over in 2000.

The election is ten months away and that's a long time, so I have to qualify my predictions.  I also have to say that they are based on the assumption that Dean will get the Democratic nomination.  It would be significantly different with Clark, Gephardt or Lieberman.

But if Dean is nominated, it's hard to imagine him picking up any state that Bush won in 2000.  Dean is the candidate for a nasty vocal minority.  They may be loud and obnoxious, but they can't carry a general election, and they'll drive away moderate voters in droves.  That is my prediction, so I would say forget Florida, Nevada and West Virginia too.  Worry about Dean winning Michigan, Pennsyvania, California and New Jersey.

[jravnsbo]

NH Anti-tax and plus all polls with Dean way ahead of Dem field show him Way behind Bush.

Also they thought Jean Shaheeen would win and she didn't , Sen Sununu the GOP candidate won easily.

Next, Nev went all GOP in 2002 also, Gov in a landslide and GOP picked up new Congressional district.

The "new migrants" in Nevada that I'm thinking of are the middle class from California and Democratic states in the the East and MidWest, who have flooded the Las Vegas Valley in the last four years and would love to vote in a pivotal state in 2004.

And in New Hampshire, you have a growing Vermont-type youth culture gradually replacing the older, libertarian voter. Not to mention the Dean hordes from Burlington coming over to organize and spend the summer in the White Mountains.

I just don't think Republicans should be complacent against Dean.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.

[jravnsbo]

Bill O'Reilly's prediction was 8 states for Dean.

Presuming at this point that Dean is the nominee then Dean will only win 5 or 6 states. NY will certainly go for Dean and CA wouldn't be a surprise either but they did vote in Schwarzenegger but that is probably not enough to change the voting pattern. Dean will probably carry Vermont, Newhampshire and a couple of others that won't mean much. My overall prediction is that if Dean is the nominee this will be a very boring presidential election.

[jravnsbo]

that would be awesome if dems have like a dean with the lead but have to take it to the convention.  Can see it already either dean splits or narrowly gets it and losta  ton of time and money fighting off rivals.

What are the chances that Democrats in the February and March primaries will realize Dean's potential weakness as a nominee, and pledge enough delegates to other candidates to throw the choice to the convention?

[jravnsbo]

But he also wants tax increases, wants massive regulations on business,  yes he balanced budget in VT ( half the size of Miami) and he had to raise taxes through the roof there to do it, and he wants to socialize medicine.

I think that people overstate the difference between Dean and other potential Democratic nominees, based on subtle differences in their place on the ideological spectrum.  Ultimately it is not Dean's extreme leftism that makes him unelectable, it is his region

Please don't brand Dean as an extremist. He might support civil unions and oppose the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean he's a raving communist. His views on gun control, or his fiscal policies as Govenor, are to the right of the Democratic party.

[jravnsbo]

Yes if you are extrreme left or extreme right you are out of the mainstream.  Like kucinich, Dean, Sharpton and Braun way too far left.

The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

"of the mainstream candidates" Who are excluded, all actual left-wingers, or what?