2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[cskendrick]

Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to.

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:

You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes. You have to look at the past presidential elections, and factor those together. West Va would be considered more democratic, however I believe that they will go Bush this time.

Florida on the other hand has ALWAYS been solid GOP. This notion about how it leans democratic must be coming from the close election of 2000. FL went GOP in 1992, and would have went GOP in 1996 had Perot not been running. Clinton did not win but by a few points. I think with all that in mind you have to consider 2000 as more a fluke for being so close. Since 2000, more people in FL are now registered GOP than Dem, the first time in the state! FL doesn't lean GOP, it will be reliably GOP in 2004.

If you look at the LA Gov race, you had basically identical candidates for Gov. It was an off year so the GOP expected to do worse than normal. Had you had a John "F" Kerry run in LA, GOP would have won big time. The Dems win in the south with a "moderate" dem, or at least in Edwards case, a "perceived" moderate.

First off: I am not looking at gubernatorial races as a driver for my model, I am not sure what you are getting at, and I am incorporating the last few presidential elections.

WEST VIRGINIA - Darn it. I just knew I shouldn't have gotten in the business of manual adjustments yesterday.

Yesterday, I took a suggestion to tweak my predictions for West Virginia...now I hear the exact opposite from you.

Ruling: I'm moving WV back to the original settings and keeping it there!

FLORIDA: This adjustment I will keep; I boosted Florida's "Conservative Quotient" (that has a nice ring to it) already, per the consensus suggestion yesterday.

All Bush has to do is keep his approval ratings from falling any lower and he'll win the Sunshine State. That's not going to be difficult now, is it?

LOUISIANA: I stand by this one. Bush clears Lousiana even if his nationwide ratings fall below 49%.

What I don't get is that in your first paragraph, you tell me not to concern myself with gubernatorial races, and here you create a fantasy football league situation in which a candidate from Massachusetts runs for Lousiana governor. Of course he'd be killed. He's not from Louisiana!

And Trent Lott would be killed if he ran for governor in Michigan; things that Mississippians are willing to accept or overlook, the Michiganders won't.

That's why I don't get into these fantasy football discussions, save to make light of them.

To answer your response about your fantasy leagues (your term, not mine), I think what everyone knows that my comment is the fact that the Kerry Democratic-types DO NOT work in the South. If a candidate with his mentality and beliefs tried to run in LA he would be soundly defeated. The dem and rep gov candidates were conservative enough last go around to not have the differences normally associated with a race...that is a fluke it doesn't normally happen. Anyway, had the other democrat running been the nominee, the GOP would have won LA too!

Regarding my comment about not concerning yourself with gov races, thats not what I said. I said you have to put them together collectively. You have to look at a presidential trend as carrying more weight in the overall outcome. You may have a state that votes dem or rep for the last 30 years in the presidential race, and votes the other party in the last election for a state race.

I hope I answered your question regarding your football fantasies of a Mass. senator running for LA gov, even though I never said it. You did.

YOUR EXACT WORDS were

"You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes." And you provided no context.

I rest my case.

THE "FANTASY FOOTBALL" TERM

Of course it was mine. I used it, and I did so very effectively.

It perfectly describes what can most politely called a game that political wonks play, the "what if Gore had been president during 9/11?" game, in which any and every horrible worst-case variation on an already-devastating event are expressed with abandon...and often with relish.

You Kerry-in-Louisiana quip is nothing more than a diluted variation of that motif.

It's also likely to be correct. Louisiana is becoming more conservative over time.

[Nation]

Very nice analysis, Voltron. If that one Maine district goes for Kerry, it'd be a 269-269 split.

Welcome to the boards, keep posting elsewhere. Would like to hear your opinions on other things.

[Nym90]

There was a Democratic governor of New Jersey in 1992.

[muon2]

Vorlon,

Nice anaysis. One prediction sticks out as contrary to the analysis. NM has been increasing in Hispanic voting strength throughout the 1990's, but your trend shows an increase in GOP strength. Given how close it was in 2000, wouldn't it be a candidate to flip to the GOP based on the analysis (excluding Richardson as VP)?

[elcorazon]

Vorlon, I've been wanting to do this analysis for a long time.  Thanks for helping me out.  I would like to see 1988 included as well, given that the Republicans won that year and the Democrats ran a "Massachusetts liberal".  I think this would help with the analysis in the south.  I've actually started it already only with the southern states so I think I can use what you did to solidify what I've done so far.

It's going to be another close election.

[John]

Hi folks, here are my early thoughts on 2004, I've made state by state comments where required... I've included the 2000 general election results as a guide

SOLID DEMOCRATIC

Baring a blowout of Reagan like proportions, these should go democratic

District of Columbia   - 3 EVs - Gore was + 76.20%
Rhode Island - 4 EVs - Gore was + 29.08%
Massachusetts - 12 EVs - Gore was +27.30%
New York - 31 EVs - Gore was +24.98%
Hawaii - 4 EVs - Gore was +18.33%
Connecticut - 7 EVs - Gore was +17.47%
Maryland - 10 EVs - Gore was +16.39%
New Jersey -15 EVs - Gore was +15.83%
Delaware - 3 EVs - Gore was +13.06%
Illinois - 21 EVs - Gore was +   12.01%
California - 55 EVs - Gore was +  11.80%
Vermont - 3 EVs - Gore was +  9.94%

SOLID DEMOCRATIC - 165 EVs

BATTLEGROUND STATES - LEAN DEMOCRATIC

Washington   11 - EVs - Gore was +5.58%

A very interesting state.  In 2000 The Democrats won the Senate seat by about 2000 votes, despite only carrying 2 of 68 counties.
Huge Democratic turnout in King County (Seatle) carried both the Senate seat and the State for the Democrats.

The Gay Marraige issue really hurts Bush in Seattle, but really helps everywhere else.  All the extra military spending helps Bush as you get further away from the Coast.  

Over the last few cycles this state is actuallly mildly tending GOP

I tentatively lean this one to the Democrats, but I suspect the margin will be less than in 2000 - Keep this state on your watch list

Michigan      17   EVs - Gore was +5.13%

Rust belt state has been pounded as US auto production shifts from Unionized big 3 auto plants in the Rust Belt, to Non-Union non- big 3 plants in the South - Kerry and the Dems wins this state going away...

Maine      4   EVs - Gore was +-5.11%

Trivia about Maine - allows for a split electoral college vote, who ever carries each of Maine's 2 house districts gets 1 EV, and the overall state winner gets the other 2.  The GOP has a very strong chance of picking up Maine2 this cycle, so I will make a quirky prediction and say that Kerry gets 3 EVs and Bush gets 1...

Pennsylvania   21   EVs - Gore was +-4.17%

Everything I said about MIchigan, but more so....

Oregon      7   EVs - Gore was +0.44%

Politically a very weird state.  Somebody once defined Oregon as a place that supports the Death penaly... but only if the electric chair is solar powered...  

Softwood Lumber dispute with Canada gives Bush some advantage here due to Bush Tariffs,... historically too close to call...  Will leave it with the Dems for now..

Wisconsin   10   EVs - Gore was +0.22%

Semi-Rust Belt state (curdled cheese?)...think this one stays in the Dems column

New Mexico   5   EVs - Gore was +0.06%

Growing Hispanic Vote helps the Dems, may be partly offset by Gay Marraige issue as most Hispanics tend to be social conservatives.

Too close to call, but I'll leave this one in the Dem column,   Bill Richardson is a Democratic Governor, but in reality, flip a coin....

New Hampshire   4 EVs   Bush was +1.27%

Bush took a huge pounding during the Democratic primary, and state hurt bad by high tech outsourcing.  This one flips to the Dems.

Ohio   20 EVs   Bush was +3.51%

This state will be very, very close.  It may even be 2004's Florida.
As a rust belt state that has taken it on the chin - I'll tentatively put this one in the Democratic column. - If your a Republican, Ohioi for the DEms has GOT to hurt - No GOP candidate has won the Presidency without Ohio duriing the entire 20th century...

West Virginia   5 EVs - Bush was +6.32%

2000 was an anomaly over the coal issue.  Back to the Dems

LEAN DEMOCRATIC - 103 EVs (took one off for Maine)
SOLID DEMOCRATIC - 165 EVS
TOTAL - 268 EVs

BATTLEGROUND - LEAN GOP

Minnesota   10   EVs - Gore was +2.40%

Tending GOP gradually, GOP took the Senate seat in 2000, GOP state party much better organized and mobilized than before.  I will give this on to Bush & the GOP... Hmmm.. GOOP has a shot in Minnesota... they times they ARE a changing...

Iowa      7   EVs - Gore was +0.31%

Buchanan cost Bush this state in 2000, it was so close that Buchanan being out of the race may tilt it to Bush, also the whole military scene helps Bush, plus the Gay Marraige thing

I'll Give this one to Bush and the GOP

Missouri   11   Bush was +3.34%

No Carnahan sysmpathy vote, no Ashcroft, and hopefully no unusual goings on in St. Loius.  Bush should hold.

Florida   27 EVs - 0.01%

Brother Jeb won big in 2002, plus the elderly factor HELPS bush.  Bush actually won the +65 vote 50/46 in 2000.  The elderly actually break into two groups the young seniors (under 70) who tend GOP fairly strongly, and the old seniors (over 70) who are strongly Democratic.  Naturally, the +70s are dying off faster than the under 70s...

Nevada   5 EVs - Bush was +3.55%

State is getting very very close as Las Vegas grows and become more of a typical big city, it helps the Dems.  I'll leave it GOP for now, but DEFINITELY on the watch list

Tennessee   11 EVs Bush was +3.86%

Tennessee is a GOP state now.  Gore couldn't even carry his home state.  This puppy ain't even close any more.

Arkansas   6 EVs - Bush was +5.44%

Same as Tennessee

Arizona   10 EVs - Bush was +6.28%

A lot like Nevada in terms of demographic changes - I'll leave it GOP for now, but also on the watch list.

TOTAL BATTLEGROUND LEAN GOP - 87 EVs + 1 for Maine = 88

SOLID GOP STATES

Louisiana   9 EVs - Bush was +7.68%
Virginia   13 EVs - Bush was +8.04%
Colorado   9 EVs - Bush was +8.36%
Georgia   15 EVs - Bush was +11.69%

Some Dems say it will be close - I have a one word reply -Zel Miller...

North Carolina   15 EVs - Bush was +12.83%
Alabama   9 EVs - Bush was +14.88%
Kentucky   8 EVs - Bush was +15.13%
Indiana   11 EVs - Bush was +15.63%
South Carolina   8  EVs - Bush was + 15.93%
Mississippi   6  EVs - Bush was +16.91%
Kansas   6    EVs - Bush was +20.80%
Texas   34 EVs - Bush was + 21.32%
Oklahoma   7 EVs - Bush was + 21.88%
South Dakota   3  EVs - Bush was +22.73%
Montana   3  EVs - Bush was + 25.07%
North Dakota   3  EVs - Bush was + 27.60%
Nebraska   5  EVs - Bush was + 28.99%
Alaska   3 EVs - Bush was +30.95%
Idaho   4 EVs - Bush was + 39.53%
Wyoming   3 EVs - Bush was +40.06%
Utah   5 EVs - Bush was +40.49%

SOLID GOP = 182 EVs
TOTAL BATTLEGROUND LEAN GOP - 87 EVs + 1 for Maine = 88

BUSH WINS 270/268 in the Electoral College

I Like that it is a Show down what will Happen

[Platypus]

Oregon (But Iowa and Wisconsin were also damned close).

Whilst they are certainly useful guides, I think that basing predictions solely on trends and history can be a bit misleading. If we did it in 2000, we probably would have predicted a much larger Gore win.

The publuic is fickle, figures aren't-but only the public votes.

[Platypus]

Some states can certainly be predicted by trends, for sure.

BTW, was I right with Oregon?

[minionofmidas]

Vorlon, I've been wanting to do this analysis for a long time.  Thanks for helping me out.  I would like to see 1988 included as well, given that the Republicans won that year and the Democrats ran a "Massachusetts liberal".  I think this would help with the analysis in the south.  I've actually started it already only with the southern states so I think I can use what you did to solidify what I've done so far.

It's going to be another close election.

1988 is a frak election. Massive Democratic strength in the remaining farming areas. Republican Total Control in the suburbs frightened stiff of Willie Horton. it's not a year I'd base any predictions on.

[opebo]

Well it appears the map has finally shifted from all the Democratic fantasy scenarios submitted - New Hampshire is now Red.  I think this is very unlikely to be the case in November.

[Gustaf]

Well it appears the map has finally shifted from all the Democratic fantasy scenarios submitted - New Hampshire is now Red.  I think this is very unlikely to be the case in November.

Cool! It's the first time that the prediction map has actaully changed, as far as I remember!

The last NH poll gives Kerry a 15 point lead there, so it certainly appears competitive to me.

[JohnFKennedy]

you guys talking about the switch of colours for the democratic primary so Kerry is red, Edwards green and Dean purple?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

you guys talking about the switch of colours for the democratic primary so Kerry is red, Edwards green and Dean purple?

I think they are talking about the map that lists the median of everyone's general election predictions.  Until now, it has always been identical to the 2000 results.

[JohnFKennedy]

ah ok

[Gustaf]

you guys talking about the switch of colours for the democratic primary so Kerry is red, Edwards green and Dean purple?

I think they are talking about the map that lists the median of everyone's general election predictions.  Until now, it has always been identical to the 2000 results.

Spot on.

[Saratoga2DM]

Hello All:

Super Tuesday has finally revealed the Democratic nominee for the presidency,  and for the first time since 1988 he is a northerner.  John Kerry told GW Bush last night on the phone that he wanted to "stick to the issues" yet our conservative media has not revealed to the voting public how they will interpret that statement.  

Kerry vs.  Bush will be an interesting ticket and it will be a close election unless one or the other candidate falls apart  prior to the election.  Can Kerry sustain his momentum now that he will be harassed by the GOP, the media, and to an extent Ralph Nader?  I don't know.  Kerry understands how improtant this election is to the future of our great democracy, and we can only hope the voting public answers his call to dethrone Bush from his Supreme Court appointed-presidency.  

I have a feeling that legitimacy will be another key issue in this campaign, especially since election 2000 will come back to haunt Bush in november.  

Finally, the issue of potential running mates for both candidates is a puzzling one.  Will Cheney decide to leave the politics and if so, who will replace him?  Maybe Colin Powell, but I have heard that NY governor George Pataki may want to be Bush's running mate.  His strong environmental record and his current popularity in NY would make the Republican ticket very difficult to beat.  

For Kerry, Geographical balance is necessary.  Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be great for the Dems but in an interview with Wolf Blitzer a couple of weeks ago, he said he would rather stay as governor.  Edwards would be a likely choice since he is very popular in the South.  Some have mentioned Hillary Clinton but in my opinion she should stay as senator and leave politics when her term ends in 2006.   But I think when all is said and done, Kerry will make the right choice.  

As for me, I need to reevaluate my prediction map.  
See you later and long live the Empire State.

[JohnFKennedy]

Hello All:

Super Tuesday has finally revealed the Democratic nominee for the presidency,  and for the first time since 1988 he is a northerner.  John Kerry told GW Bush last night on the phone that he wanted to "stick to the issues" yet our conservative media has not revealed to the voting public how they will interpret that statement.  

Kerry vs.  Bush will be an interesting ticket and it will be a close election unless one or the other candidate falls apart  prior to the election.  Can Kerry sustain his momentum now that he will be harassed by the GOP, the media, and to an extent Ralph Nader?  I don't know.  Kerry understands how improtant this election is to the future of our great democracy, and we can only hope the voting public answers his call to dethrone Bush from his Supreme Court appointed-presidency.  

I have a feeling that legitimacy will be another key issue in this campaign, especially since election 2000 will come back to haunt Bush in november.  

Finally, the issue of potential running mates for both candidates is a puzzling one.  Will Cheney decide to leave the politics and if so, who will replace him?  Maybe Colin Powell, but I have heard that NY governor George Pataki may want to be Bush's running mate.  His strong environmental record and his current popularity in NY would make the Republican ticket very difficult to beat.  

For Kerry, Geographical balance is necessary.  Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be great for the Dems but in an interview with Wolf Blitzer a couple of weeks ago, he said he would rather stay as governor.  Edwards would be a likely choice since he is very popular in the South.  Some have mentioned Hillary Clinton but in my opinion she should stay as senator and leave politics when her term ends in 2006.   But I think when all is said and done, Kerry will make the right choice.  

As for me, I need to reevaluate my prediction map.  
See you later and long live the Empire State.

A few points to you about what you just said:

1. What momentum does Kerry have? Democratic Primary victories? they are democrats voting, he needs to pull people away from the GOP or Nader.

2. He won't pick Colin Powell, the reason Colin Powell has never run for President is that his wife was afraid he would get shot because he is Afro-Carribean.

3. Even if he offered it to Hillary Clinton she probably wouldn't take it, she wants Kerry as she thinks he will lose meaning 2008 will be wide open to Hillary.

[Gustaf]

'Kerry will love'?

it supposed to be 'lose', right?

[JohnFKennedy]

what are you talking about man? it says lose *shifty eyes*

no love of course, Kerry is gonna have a sex scandal involving Hillary!!!!!

[Gustaf]

what are you talking about man? it says lose *shifty eyes*

no love of course, Kerry is gonna have a sex scandal involving Hillary!!!!!

That's not a very nice mental image...

[© tweed]

If your going by current polling NH is solid Kerry, 53-38% in the latest poll I believe.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Thanks, Vorlon, for sharing what sounds like an informed opinion on polling.

The upcoming campaign is sure to be hard fought and bitter, and polls will likely be used to misinform as much as inform.

Knowing what's scientific and what's not would be very helpful.

[opebo]

Yes, VORLON, excellent information on polls.  Can you share any websites where one can find these polls?

[Gustaf]

Those are indeed some good points. Thanks for sharing...

[Gustaf]

It seems like the question of reliabilty in polls always pop up...I tried to explain some of the basics before, Angus, I think it was, did it as well in a more pedagogic way. Than my way that is, not trying to bash you...

Basically, you jsut have to use your common sense when it comes to statistics, most of it is more or less self-explanatory, as long as we're talking general guidelines, as with most of these thinga. It's quantifying them that is the hard part...