2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[??????????]

Yes someday you will be freed. As long as Kerry is kept out of office.

Did you hear about carry voting to cut funding to the CIA right after the 93 World Trade Center bombing. I hope no more bombshells like this come out.

[muon2]

do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party


The fact is the current system is 'rigged' in favor of rural and smaller states. Although the framers of the constitution wanted some kind of system to ensure larger states dont dominate smaller states, they couldnt envision an America with the number of smaller states we have and the size disparirty we have today. The bottom line is that the system that was built to ensure the bigger states dont dominate the smaller states has instead created a situtation where the smaller states dominate the bigger ones.

so for 2004, just like 2000, it means the Dems have to work that much harder to get the win.

Actually... I think the system works as intended...

The reason we have a house of Representatives is that the large states were afraid of being outvoted by the smaller states.

The reason we have a Senate is the small states were afraid of being outvoted by the large states.

WE have =/- a structural situation where you need a "super majority" on all things - you need to get the majority of the people (The House of Reps), AND, the majority of the States (The Senate)....

Yes, Wyoming is very much over represented at 3 electoral votes... but with 27 EVS I have a sense Florida will not feel too neglected in the next 8 months...

I'm not so sure that the small states are as overrepresented as it would seem by their EVs. I would be true if every state operated like ME or NE and decided their electors on individual CDs. All the big states use winner-takes-all in the EC and that magnifies the margin for the majority. One can make a statistical case that CA's block vote in the EC is as unfair as WY.

[??????????]

What the truth is is that Democrats dont want the small states to count because they have their hands in the backpockets of CA, NY, and all the North East. If they got a popular vote and no electoral college it would be a huge boost to their party. They just want to destroy the constitution for their own political game. It's sad really.

[elcorazon]

As long as the news reporters dont say "Florida goes to Kerry (or vice versa)" before ALL the polls have closed! Geesh reporters, Florida is in two time zones.

Reporters are scoundrels anyhow.

I disagree with you.

There is actually pretty good evidence that an early call of an election impacts turnout in other areas.

When it became clear in 1980 that Reagan was blowing out Carter, a lot of Dems stayed home in the western time zones.  Most pros figure that this vost the DEms maybe a half dozen house seats in California.

When bush "lost" florida in 2000 it likely cost the GOP senate swats in Missori and Washington state.

I'd like to see a uniform nation wide closing time for this reason.

You are raising a separate issue here, which is the impact of projections of the entire election (Reagan projected to win once the East coast & some of the central time zone were done) impacting states still voting.  I was talking about the projection of the state of Florida with 10 minutes or so left to vote.

Supersoulty, I don't know your brother in law (who may or may not be a liar) and I have heard of no accounts of voters leaving the lines to vote due to the projections of the networks within minutes of polls closing in the panhandle of Florida.

I did make another point which is still valid.  A candidate/party has no one to blame but themselves if voters in, for example, California stay home because Reagan is winning, I say too bad. I'm also uncertain how many Reagan voters might also stay home thinking their vote is not needed for Reagan to win, so that would minimize the impact of Carter voters staying home.  If the support is that weak and the voter's concern for the election that shallow, then too bad.  I say this even though, most would agree in general it is more likely to hurt democrats, given that Republicans historically have had a more solid base of support and turnout has been a positive for democrats.

[elcorazon]

I think Vorlon is my favorite member here.  Always informative and educational, never partisan.  I see you changed your map, putting Minn to Kerry.  Any particular reason for that?

[Gustaf]

What the truth is is that Democrats dont want the small states to count because they have their hands in the backpockets of CA, NY, and all the North East. If they got a popular vote and no electoral college it would be a huge boost to their party. They just want to destroy the constitution for their own political game. It's sad really.

It wouldn't be a huge boost, that's ridiculous. And the small state's voters would still count, just as much as those of the big states. The issue is whether people should be discriminated against on the basis of their residence or not.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

hold both candidates in near equal comtempt...

Reminds me of McKay in Porridge...

[Siege40]

Hello Forum members, I'm new here and I have high hopes. Let me first say, I'm a foreigner. I'm an Ontario resident in Canada, so I appologize if I make any mistakes. I've made some educated guesses, and I think I did pretty well.

I think the Democrats will win ME, NH, VT, Mass., Conn., RI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI, DE, MD, DC, LA, IL, WI, IA, MN, OR, WA, and HI.

Republicans: VA, FL, AL, MS, TN, IN, AR, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD,ND, MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, ID, NV, CA, AK, and KY.

I think the swing states are WV, NC, GA, SC, and MO. I think that if Edwards is selected as VP the Democrats will win NC, SC and GA.

That's 246-D 225-R and 51- Swing. Who knows, maybe I'm completely nuts.

Siege40

[mooster]

I'm new to this web-site.  I'm impressed by Vorlon's almost casual mastery of the electoral map.

Why isn't Penn amongst the toss-up states?

What does voter registration data tell us?

I have a statistics background, and I'm curious about the "model" that you refer to.  Is this a formal mathematical predictive model, and if so, what are the input variables?

[elcorazon]

Hello Forum members, I'm new here and I have high hopes. Let me first say, I'm a foreigner. I'm an Ontario resident in Canada, so I appologize if I make any mistakes. I've made some educated guesses, and I think I did pretty well.

I think the Democrats will win ME, NH, VT, Mass., Conn., RI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI, DE, MD, DC, LA, IL, WI, IA, MN, OR, WA, and HI.

Republicans: VA, FL, AL, MS, TN, IN, AR, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD,ND, MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, ID, NV, CA, AK, and KY.

I think the swing states are WV, NC, GA, SC, and MO. I think that if Edwards is selected as VP the Democrats will win NC, SC and GA.

That's 246-D 225-R and 51- Swing. Who knows, maybe I'm completely nuts.

Siege40

Welcome.  You're the first I've seen to have the Republicans win California, and have them behind.  I think you overestimate the Dems support in the south, but I think Cal will go dem and a few others you had in the rep column, I think could be up for grabs.  I'll be visiting your fair province in a couple of weeks.  Maybe I'll see ya there.

[© tweed]

Who knows, maybe I'm completely nuts.

yes, I think you are

[Siege40]

So maybe I'm crazy, the reason I picked the Republicans to win in California is that Schwarzanegger is doing pretty well out there, not to mention the Democrat Davis was thrown out on his ear, easily. I assumed that this support could continue. I don't know, I'm just a Canadian.

You're right, South Carolina is a stretch, so is Georgia, but you never can tell, the economy down there is pretty messed up, people have lost their jobs in the South too. Does being Southern mean you have to vote Republican? I don't think so, but to rule out the possibility of a Democratic showing in the South is likely a mistake. But I'm still new at this.

Siege40

[zachman]

Governors don't mean a thing.

[mooster]

Thanks , Vorlon, for the info on the voter registrations.

So about this predictive model...

Siege40 - if Canada had won the war of 1812, we'd now have universal healthcare, one quarter of the present level of gun violence, and we'd currently hold the hockey gold medal, in other words, peace, order, and good government.  Oh well, we'll have to be happy with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However, your predictions are, to use the technical term, perquacky.

 

[agcatter]

Vorlon,
Thanks for that explanation regarding turnout and polling.  That was interesting.

[WMS]

(lots of really interesting info cut for brevity)

Prior to the Voter Fraud Promotion & Enablement Act "Motor Voter" act, polling was much easier - If somebody took the time and effort to actually go down to their local courthouse and register to vote, they were a likely voter.  You asked somebody if they had registered, and if they had - you counted them in the survey results.

Because of "Moter Voter" the number of people registered to vote has gone up dramatically, but most of the newly registered simply don't vote.  Indeed overall turnout still seems to be at best stable and if anything modestly trending downward.

To try to limit their sample to the 50ish% who actually vote, pollsters ask a whole bunch of screening questions, such as how carefully the voter is paying attention, do they know where their poling place is, did they vote in the last election, how enthusiastic they are about their candidate, etc...  Depending on the firm doing the poll there is a screen of anywhere from 7 to 13 questions.  

(more really interesting stuff cut)

Hurray, someone who feels the same way I do about the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, e.g. the "Motor Voter" Act, e.g., the Voter Fraud Promotion & Enablement Act! What a piece of {censored}-up leftist tripe! What possible sense is there in NOT deleting voters who don't vote? Most people on this board would not believe how much cr*p is stuffed into county voter registration rolls because of this!

Vorlon, you are absolutely correct about this. And I KNOW - I spent four years in a County Bureau of Elections, and the things I've seen! The potential for election fraud because of this act is immense, and I know of one local race where it WAS used - a *very* left-wing organization went around a particular city council district asking registered voters if they were intending to vote. In the cases of those voters who said "no", they then arranged to send in their OWN people to vote in their stead. And a VERY corrupt leftist candidate won the race, and has been every bit as bad of a councilor as you might expect. So there's a case study for you, Vorlon.

And do you know about the very surprising findings of Dr. Michael McDonald about voter turnout rates, at http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm ? It isn't that voter turnout has been declining - it's that, and I'll say it bluntly if he won't, the numbers have been skewed by the huge surge in illegal Mexican immigration since about 1965, which increased the numbers of *people counted by the Census* but not of *eligible voters*. Fun!

[muon2]

And do you know about the very surprising findings of Dr. Michael McDonald about voter turnout rates, at http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm ? It isn't that voter turnout has been declining - it's that, and I'll say it bluntly if he won't, the numbers have been skewed by the huge surge in illegal Mexican immigration since about 1965, which increased the numbers of *people counted by the Census* but not of *eligible voters*. Fun!

I've followed some of the work of Dr. McDonald since he was located in IL until recently. He has studied both redistricting as well as voter turnout. If I recall the trend to lower turnout was due to both immigration and incarceration.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf

I note in your signature that you are a self discribed "libertarian with conservative leanings"

Ignoring for the moment the mental gymnastics that being Libertarian AND conservative implies.. how the ^&##@! does that equate to supporting John Kerry?

Kerry is many things... a Libertarian is NOT one of them...  I am not saying Bush is a Libertarian either .. I just can't get my brain around Kerry, Libertarian, and Conservative happily co-existing....

Heh, lol...I use the word 'libertarian' to not confuse all you Americans too much...I would be a liberal conservative in Europe, but that would be even worse for you, wouldn't it?

I am not happy with Kerry, believe me, I will not be very happy OR sad regardless of the out-come of this election. But I really don't trust GWB, I think he's a fake. Also, he's messing up the image of the US abroad, making it a hated country again. Kerry is way too weak too inflict too much damage when it comes to terrorism, etc. And having a Dem president and a Rep congress is good since it locks them all to an extent. But I could go more in-depth in you want, though I'm no sure this is the thread for it.

[Nation]

Vorlon, just out of curiosity, how accurate were your predictions in 2000?

[??????????]

Does anybody know where Kerry stands on any issue? If so I'd like to know. He was against all executions, now he's only for executing terrorists. He was for the current Iraq conflict, now hes against it? Sounds like all we have here is a political vulture. Ted Kennedy has even voted against some of his proposals.

[Gustaf]

Does anybody know where Kerry stands on any issue? If so I'd like to know. He was against all executions, now he's only for executing terrorists. He was for the current Iraq conflict, now hes against it? Sounds like all we have here is a political vulture. Ted Kennedy has even voted against some of his proposals.

This is primarily a thread for the user predictions we add, so if you wanna bash Kerry you could start a thread for it. I know this goes off topic at times anyway, but we can at least try, you know?

[ShapeShifter]

Vorlon, what do you base your information on and where do you get it?

By the way, anyone, where can I get state polls for 2004 election?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[url]www.dcpoliticalreport.com[/i]

And several other sites

[Siege40]

Thanks , Vorlon, for the info on the voter registrations.

So about this predictive model...

Siege40 - if Canada had won the war of 1812, we'd now have universal healthcare, one quarter of the present level of gun violence, and we'd currently hold the hockey gold medal, in other words, peace, order, and good government.  Oh well, we'll have to be happy with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However, your predictions are, to use the technical term, perquacky.

 

Had Canada won the War of 1812 they had no chance to annex America, you guys were too big to control even then. We would of checked American expansion and we likely would of annexed Michigan and Northern Maine, so they'd be fortunate enough to enjoy our good graces.

I'll do my best to make my estimate a little less perquacky. Thanks for the tips.

Siege40

[ShapeShifter]

[url]www.dcpoliticalreport.com[/i]

And several other sites

it seems that the site does not work....