2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[opebo]

Not so Gustaff - theres a big difference in a 10-20% higher tax rate on the rich, or in having or not having a capital gains tax, or estate tax, or tort reform, or in the Supreme Court.

[opebo]

Vorlon - your map interests me.  Cool to see a map that has a GOP win without FL or OH.  Why do you think the GOP will win Oregon and more particularly Washington, while losing Florida, Ohio, and WV?

[opebo]

I think Ross Perot is in some sort of asylum.

[opebo]

It is valuable and appropriate that the votes of rural people and people from smaller communities count for more than voters in huge cities.  Its one of the checks and balances - it prevents democracy, which the Founders quite sensibly saw as a bad thing: the tyranny of the majority.

[opebo]

Vorlon -

Your rationale makes a lot of sense, especially regarding WA and OR.  I've always written them off based on little more than 2000 and the fact that their economies are perpetual underperformers.  But I guess they're used to it - their unemployment rate has been much higher than the national average for I believe decades.

Anyway, I see it as quite possiblie Bush wins everything you see  him winning plus FL, OH, WV, and PA.  

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.

[opebo]

Protests are nice, but it wont stop terrorists attacks. You stop force with force.

Nonsense. A psycological war is primarily won by psychology, not force. And is essentially a war of minds and hearts. Look at Vietnam.

Psychology is greatly influenced by, say, blowing up the enemy's grandmother while she sleeps at night - this was the rational behind firebombing Dresden and Tokyo, or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Americans had the right attitude during that war.

[opebo]

I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Well, if they insist on being 'warriors', then the only option is to fight them.  I think we can win easily.

[opebo]

Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

[opebo]

Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

I get it - fascism.  But think about it Gustaf - how was the behavior of the Allies any different in terms of strategy or tactics (I forget which is is) than the Fascists?  Just because we're Liberals doesn't mean we don't have to kill people who would kill us.

[opebo]

Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

I get it - fascism.  But think about it Gustaf - how was the behavior of the Allies any different in terms of strategy or tactics (I forget which is is) than the Fascists?  Just because we're Liberals doesn't mean we don't have to kill people who would kill us.

In the sense that they didn't slaughter people on purpose. But I didn't say that the allies didn't committ atrocities. But fighting Hitler is not a very good example, it doesn't ahppen very often. And being Liberal shouldn't prevent killng people, I agree, we have the same right to fun as anyone else. I am beginning to like the internal killing more and more, actually. We could put people in Alaska and nuke them, on regular intervals. It could ensure that the population remained alert and did their best not to piss us off.

We slaughtered a lot of people on purpose - Hiroshima, Dresden, etc.

[opebo]

What do you guys think of organizing a single national prison, in a penal colony in lets say Alaska? It would cetainly be affordable now, and the millitary can guard from prison breaks.

Too cold.  How about Cuba?

[opebo]

What do you guys think of organizing a single national prison, in a penal colony in lets say Alaska? It would cetainly be affordable now, and the millitary can guard from prison breaks.

Prisons are usless. Death pnealty on every crime, that oughta teach them.

The death penalty does show that you have the courage of your convictions.

[opebo]

Kerry will destroy our enemies and he understands honesty and responsibility more than Bush.

Bush is unconcerned of our future past this election.

Kerry is a defeatist.

[opebo]

Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40

All of those except for Egypt are excellent candidates, particularly Saudi Arabia.

[opebo]

Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Actually Ohio's been hovering around 6% unemployment - marginally worse than Missouri at 4.7%, but not nearly as bad as the West Coast or NY.

[opebo]

Gov. Richardson might give the Dems AZ and CO.  But that's a slim chance of happening.  Sen. Edwards might help the Dems in OH, IN, IA, TN, and MO.  Maybe VA and WV too.

You're dreaming in both cases.  All the above mentioned states will go GOP, even in a Bush loss.

[opebo]

I agree, Virginia is not in play.
In 2008, it will be.

Well, theoretically or demographically, yes, but not practically.  Because 2008 is going to be an easy win for whichever party has the presidency from 2004-2008.  Economic reasons - 2008 will be the 'sweet spot' of the current/incipient boom, and unemployment will be very low.

[opebo]

Unemployment actually won't. But ppl will make more money and things will cost less.  Most of the numbers will look good: markets, currency, inflation, interest rates, GDP, productivity, etc.  However, the job numbers won't bounce back until 2020 or 2024 when the Indians and Chinese Unionize and the environmental lobbies are established in those countries.  And even so, by then the next wave of mechanization will be ready to hit.

Just by nature of the changing face of the economy, jobs as we know them will become a thing of the past.  Sure Jobs that require though on a case-by-case basis will still be around, but the regular, non-degree requiring jobs will fade away.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself with this space-age analysis.  Sure productivity will be growing faster for a long while - as it has been since the late nineties - but the business cycle will reduce the unemployment rate a lot in '05-'07.

[opebo]

Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40

I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

Saudi Arabi is currently working on a number of human rights reforms, but I think that that's only because they could read the writing on the wall.

We need to relieve them of that oil - after all we (England and the US) found it all, and it was stolen ('nationalized') I believe in the late sixties.

[opebo]

Unemployment actually won't. But ppl will make more money and things will cost less.  Most of the numbers will look good: markets, currency, inflation, interest rates, GDP, productivity, etc.  However, the job numbers won't bounce back until 2020 or 2024 when the Indians and Chinese Unionize and the environmental lobbies are established in those countries.  And even so, by then the next wave of mechanization will be ready to hit.

Just by nature of the changing face of the economy, jobs as we know them will become a thing of the past.  Sure Jobs that require though on a case-by-case basis will still be around, but the regular, non-degree requiring jobs will fade away.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself with this space-age analysis.  Sure productivity will be growing faster for a long while - as it has been since the late nineties - but the business cycle will reduce the unemployment rate a lot in '05-'07.

Not in the US.  It will reduce unemployment in Mexico, South Korea, India, and China.

We'll all be working in non-transportable jobs - mostly real estate related.

[opebo]

I agree, Virginia is not in play.
In 2008, it will be.

Well, theoretically or demographically, yes, but not practically.  Because 2008 is going to be an easy win for whichever party has the presidency from 2004-2008.  Economic reasons - 2008 will be the 'sweet spot' of the current/incipient boom, and unemployment will be very low.

It's very silly to day that 4 1/2 years from the election.

Not at all - economic expansions usually last at least 5-7 years, and more recently have tended to last longer.  Also unemployment gets low at the very end of expansions.  There's nothing risky about the prediction I made for 4.5 years from now.

[opebo]

Then why do you see him hanging with so many democrats? just curious.

I don't think that's because he's liberal - its because he's self serving and not very loyal to his party.

[opebo]

Colin Powell would never win, especially not in the south as someone else pointed out...

Lets not forget the fact that race is still a huge factor, especially in primaries when more extreme voters turn out.

1/10 voters still believe Interracial marriage should be banned...  (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-21-gay-marriage_x.htm)

A higher ratio in the south where most Republican primary delegates come from.  Colin Powell would have no chance of winning a Republican nomination...  and he is too conservative to win a Democratic nomination.

The country is clearly not ready for a black president because there are still too many biggots out there who don't even think interracial marriage is ok... and they tend to be older and they tend to vote more than anyone else, especially in primaries.  

But I don't mind not having Colin Powell as President, he is pathetic.  

If any Southerners would be against Powell it would have nothing to do with his race, it would be because of his insufficient Conservatism.  Though they might be suspicious of his ideologicaly purity *because* of his race, I don't think they'd mind his race in and of itself.  

[opebo]

The map isn't terrible, but Missouri is definitely trending Republican.