|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 10, 2020, 12:03:30 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 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 99 Print
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 826882 times)
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 #450 on: January 04, 2004, 03:21:33 pm »

Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.

He is fooling around. I am sure of it now. He mixes comprehendible statements with complete rubbish. Also, if he just had bad grammar, he could see how we spell certain words and do the same. And he seems to be able to read our posts, so he should be able to do that. For a short while I was beginning to suspect that the guy honestly couldn't spell, but now I think he is just messing with us.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #451 on: January 04, 2004, 03:27:31 pm »

Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.

He is fooling around. I am sure of it now. He mixes comprehendible statements with complete rubbish. Also, if he just had bad grammar, he could see how we spell certain words and do the same. And he seems to be able to read our posts, so he should be able to do that. For a short while I was beginning to suspect that the guy honestly couldn't spell, but now I think he is just messing with us.
I think I agree with you.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,424
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #452 on: January 04, 2004, 03:28:23 pm »

Dean has the north east in the bag (including PA).  All he needs to do is to concentrate in the Mid-West and some of the swing souths to win.  

The Dems will never again sweep the south.  I think we need to let that dream die and fight the good fight in the north.

Though I don't think we'd sweep the South, FL, AR, TN, LA, and MO (and NC if Edwards is on the ticket) are definitely in play.  never give up on those, as those states might be the key.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,784
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #453 on: January 04, 2004, 03:40:14 pm »
« Edited: January 04, 2004, 03:43:20 pm by dazzleman »

I think that this discussion centers too much around the assumption that the 2004 election will be reasonably similar to the 2000 election, with the 2000 election therefore serving as the baseline for predictions about 2004.

It may turn out that way, but I don't think so.

Think about the differences between the 1968 and 1972 elections.  In 1968, Republican Nixon barely beat traditional Democrat Humphrey, who was serving as VP to then-Pres. Lyndon Johnson.  The Democrats had been in power 8 years, and the economy was doing well, but the country was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, among other things.

There was also a third party candidacy that year, with George Wallace winning several southern states with his quasi-segregationist message.  It is questionable who would have won those states in the absence of the Wallace candidacy, since the south then was still very reluctant to vote Republican, and in some states, Nixon came in third, behind Wallace and Humphrey.

Come 1972, the situation was radically different.  The economy was doing well, having gone through a recession in the 1969-71 period.  The Vietnam War was all but over for the United States, although tragically this was not the case for the Vietnamese.  In his re-election bid, Nixon faced an opponent at the far left of the Democratic Party, rather than a traditional Democrat as in 1968.

In short, the political landscape had radically changed, and it would have been foolish to base 1972 calculations on the 1968 political landscape.  Nixon went on to comfortably win states that he couldn't have dreamed of carrying in 1968.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?  I'd say a lot fewer than would have trusted it to Al Gore in 2000.

I don't think Bush will win on the scale that Nixon did in 1972, and it's probably better if he didn't (look what happened to Nixon!) but I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #454 on: January 04, 2004, 03:40:44 pm »

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.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #455 on: January 04, 2004, 04:57:51 pm »

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.
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 #456 on: January 04, 2004, 05:07:21 pm »

I think that this discussion centers too much around the assumption that the 2004 election will be reasonably similar to the 2000 election, with the 2000 election therefore serving as the baseline for predictions about 2004.

It may turn out that way, but I don't think so.

Think about the differences between the 1968 and 1972 elections.  In 1968, Republican Nixon barely beat traditional Democrat Humphrey, who was serving as VP to then-Pres. Lyndon Johnson.  The Democrats had been in power 8 years, and the economy was doing well, but the country was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, among other things.

There was also a third party candidacy that year, with George Wallace winning several southern states with his quasi-segregationist message.  It is questionable who would have won those states in the absence of the Wallace candidacy, since the south then was still very reluctant to vote Republican, and in some states, Nixon came in third, behind Wallace and Humphrey.

Come 1972, the situation was radically different.  The economy was doing well, having gone through a recession in the 1969-71 period.  The Vietnam War was all but over for the United States, although tragically this was not the case for the Vietnamese.  In his re-election bid, Nixon faced an opponent at the far left of the Democratic Party, rather than a traditional Democrat as in 1968.

In short, the political landscape had radically changed, and it would have been foolish to base 1972 calculations on the 1968 political landscape.  Nixon went on to comfortably win states that he couldn't have dreamed of carrying in 1968.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?  I'd say a lot fewer than would have trusted it to Al Gore in 2000.

I don't think Bush will win on the scale that Nixon did in 1972, and it's probably better if he didn't (look what happened to Nixon!) but I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #457 on: January 04, 2004, 05:34:40 pm »

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.
I still think he may accept if he is offered the job.
Logged
RhodeRage
Rookie
**
Posts: 31


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #458 on: January 04, 2004, 06:11:17 pm »

Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #459 on: January 04, 2004, 06:13:51 pm »

Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.
That's why I have openly suported Russ Feingold.  This election will be decided in the midwest, and Feingold's the midwestern man!
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 #460 on: January 04, 2004, 06:16:30 pm »

Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.

You're probably right. I thought Missouri was in the south, but I'm a foreigner....

Still, if you pick up Ohio, and loses NM, you will still lose the election. If you lose OR, IA, WI and MN you could lose the whole thing if you don't have anything to make it up with.

Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,784
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #461 on: January 04, 2004, 06:36:19 pm »


You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?

No, I think that states with a higher percentage voting Democratic, or Republican, will remain largely the same as 2000.  I don't think Massachusetts is suddenly going to turn strongly Republican, or Texas is going to turn Democratic.

But I do think the dynamics are very different this time than in 2000, and that Bush will win much more comfortably than he did last time.  I don't for example believe that Florida will be the ultimate swing state; I think it will be safely Republican this time.  But we'll see.  I never make bold predictions this far out, especially when we don't know the Democratic nominee.  Primaries can bring a lot of surprises.
Logged
RhodeRage
Rookie
**
Posts: 31


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #462 on: January 04, 2004, 06:40:56 pm »

Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.

You're probably right. I thought Missouri was in the south, but I'm a foreigner....

Still, if you pick up Ohio, and loses NM, you will still lose the election. If you lose OR, IA, WI and MN you could lose the whole thing if you don't have anything to make it up with.



I guess Missouri can be said to be in the south, but it all depends.  Most people say that Maryland is in the north east, although technically it is a southern state.
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 #463 on: January 04, 2004, 06:44:28 pm »


You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?

No, I think that states with a higher percentage voting Democratic, or Republican, will remain largely the same as 2000.  I don't think Massachusetts is suddenly going to turn strongly Republican, or Texas is going to turn Democratic.

But I do think the dynamics are very different this time than in 2000, and that Bush will win much more comfortably than he did last time.  I don't for example believe that Florida will be the ultimate swing state; I think it will be safely Republican this time.  But we'll see.  I never make bold predictions this far out, especially when we don't know the Democratic nominee.  Primaries can bring a lot of surprises.

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.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,784
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #464 on: January 04, 2004, 06:58:12 pm »


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.
Logged
RhodeRage
Rookie
**
Posts: 31


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #465 on: January 04, 2004, 09:26:46 pm »

I think its important to realize that Gore wasn't the only person to win states by a narrow margin.  Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and Louisiana were all fairly close.  Nevada too for that matter.

There's always room for growth, on both sides.  But you're right, this will be a very different election.
Logged
2,868,691
Harry
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,424
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #466 on: January 04, 2004, 10:31:20 pm »

Everyone must remember--Dean has not been nominated yet; when it gets down to just him and Clark it can very well go to Clark, putting MO, AR, TN, and LA easily back into play for the Dems, leading to a close Dem victory!
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #467 on: January 05, 2004, 12:44:04 am »

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.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,601
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #468 on: January 05, 2004, 02:46:20 am »

I have finally posted my map.  Thanks for making it easier, Dave.  Smiley
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,034
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #469 on: January 05, 2004, 05:08:11 am »

It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,053


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #470 on: January 05, 2004, 07:05:07 am »

It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansaw, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  
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 #471 on: January 05, 2004, 07:39:08 am »


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.

Again, you're assuming a clear Bush win. If that happens, obviously the Dems will not pick up much, and likely lose a lot instead. But I am assuming a close race, simply b/c if it isn't Bush will just win and there is less fun! Smiley
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 63,034
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #472 on: January 05, 2004, 09:12:57 am »

It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.
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 #473 on: January 05, 2004, 09:38:10 am »

It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.

The "we can win over their voters, but they cannot win over ours" seems a little biased, I must say.
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 #474 on: January 05, 2004, 09:41:03 am »

I have finally posted my map.  Thanks for making it easier, Dave.  Smiley

Well, at least you have distributed the tossups more or less equally... Wink
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 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