2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[DarthKosh]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

12.5%

You know what I mean.

Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  

[© tweed]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

12.5%

You know what I mean.

Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  

Nader polled 3.7% here.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

[DarthKosh]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

12.5%

You know what I mean.

Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  

Nader polled 3.7% here.

He may poll better this year.

[© tweed]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.

[DarthKosh]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.

If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.

[© tweed]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.

If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.

I wouldn't count on it.

[DarthKosh]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.

If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.

I wouldn't count on it.

You never know politcs can be unpredictable.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Dean is already alienating hordes of moderate Democrats, and the Bush campaign is showing it's strategy of winning them over in NY, NJ, and CT (see today's NY Times op-ed piece by Christie Whitman, "The Vital Republican Center").

[© tweed]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.

If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.

I wouldn't count on it.

You never know politcs can be unpredictable.

but it CAN be predicted accurately.

[DarthKosh]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.

If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.

I wouldn't count on it.

You never know politcs can be unpredictable.

but it CAN be predicted accurately.

Depends on the race.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

NY was stronger for Gore than TX was for Bush.
You lot really need to learn how to read polls; based on those numbers the Dem would get 55-60%, with Bush on 35-40%

By all means target CT and NJ, but NY is a no-no.

[nclib]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

In 1984 and 1988 social issues were of less importance than they are now. When economic issues are the focus, NY leans Dem but is competitive. With the focus on social issues, NY is strongly Dem. Dean would only lose NY in a McGovern/Mondale landslide.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.

Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.

True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

In 1984 and 1988 social issues were of less importance than they are now. When economic issues are the focus, NY leans Dem but is competitive. With the focus on social issues, NY is strongly Dem. Dean would only lose NY in a McGovern/Mondale landslide.

In 2004, response to 9/11 is the new prominent issue.

A lot of otherwise liberal NY City voters can't support a Dean, who has already staked out an anti-war stance. Lieberman is polling second here, and many of his supporters are not going over to Dean.

On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".

I agree that Dean would lose NY only if the Dems go down big, but I think that just a little worse than Dukakis would do it.

[© tweed]

<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.

[jravnsbo]

Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.

[© tweed]

Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.

I think The Jewish voting population is distributed this way:

25%: Vote exlcusively on Israeli issues.
25%: Vote somewhat on Israeli Issues.
50%: Vote mostly on American Issues.

So dean would probably win the Jewish vote 60-35% or so.

[NHPolitico]

Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.

Like Lieberman said, "If Dean had his way, Saddam would be in power, not in prison."

[NHPolitico]

Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.

I think The Jewish voting population is distributed this way:

25%: Vote exlcusively on Israeli issues.
25%: Vote somewhat on Israeli Issues.
50%: Vote mostly on American Issues.

So dean would probably win the Jewish vote 60-35% or so.

Sadly, I think you're lowballing it. I'd put Bush's support among Jewish voters at about 25%.  Still, that's better than in 2000, if I recall.

[NHPolitico]

<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.

How about calling members of Hamas "soldiers"?

[jravnsbo]

Disgraceful-- I have a few other names for them, like murderous terrostic thugs to be nice!

<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.

How about calling members of Hamas "soldiers"?

[Mort from NewYawk]

<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.

Miami, I can't see why anyone would take offense, particularly because I wasn't "codifying" all Jews as Israel supporters, which they are not. Perhaps I should clarify by saying that I'm a Jew who turned off to Dean as soon as I heard the Middle East remark.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.

There's no question that if the contest is Bush-Dean, there will never be a starker contrast between two candidates on the issue of support for Israel.

The rise in anti-Semitism on the European left is another reason that more Jews are feeling uncomfortable with Euro-American multilateralism on matters regarding the Middle East.

I'd say that if the Democrat is anti-war or has a muddy position, we're going to see an accelerated erosion of the Democratic Jewish vote. With two million Jews in New York City, that's gotta matter.

[jravnsbo]

Also in FL, which seems to be getting better all the time for President Bush.

Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.

There's no question that if the contest is Bush-Dean, there will never be a starker contrast between two candidates on the issue of support for Israel.

The rise in anti-Semitism on the European left is another reason that more Jews are feeling uncomfortable with Euro-American multilateralism on matters regarding the Middle East.

I'd say that if the Democrat is anti-war or has a muddy position, we're going to see an accelerated erosion of the Democratic Jewish vote. With two million Jews in New York City, that's gotta matter.

[japple]

This early in the process, I can only look at past results. States that voted Republican 4 out of the past 5 elections are worth 207 electoral votes. I'm calling this Bush's base. States he carried in 2000 are currently worth 278 - a razor thin victory. Add states that he lost by less than 5% brings him to 338. That's what I think he'll need to be considered a solid victory. States he lost in '00 where I think he's got the best shot are MN, IA, PA and NM.

My home state of MN hasn't voted Republican in a long time, but in every case there was a Minnesotan on the ballot or there was a strong Democratic
candidate. It was VERY close in '84 and '00. A solid effort by Bush - and his volunteers - in '04 will give him the state. Republicans regularily win state-wide elections here, but it's usually close - Senate and Governor in 2002.

With no Senate or Governor race, and no competative House races this year, Minnesota is going to be all about turn-out.