2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sorry it's: www.dcpoliticalreport.com

[ShapeShifter]

Sorry it's: www.dcpoliticalreport.com

seems for some reason that when going through my original ISP.. i get no connection to that site... then i went through AOL... and got a connection.... then i tried ...

http://www.DCPoliticalReport.com/index.htm

that seems to work for BOTH of my ISP ....

Thanks a lot for the link... i really appreciated it ... i think this is the site i used last election.. been looking for it

[WMS]

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.

You're right - he does talk about all of that. And he had, by far, the most interesting site on the 2000 (well, 2001-3) redistricting...pretty accurate, too. A pity it doesn't appear to exist any more...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My new prediction:

[Gustaf]

My new prediction:

Now, let's not be pessimistic, surely Kerry could do better than that?

[elcorazon]

yeah.  losing OR & NH seem unlikely to me.  I've been thinking about moving NH into definite dem territory, away from battleground territory, myself.

[dunn]

lol

[Gustaf]

yeah.  losing OR & NH seem unlikely to me.  I've been thinking about moving NH into definite dem territory, away from battleground territory, myself.

I was being sarcastic, but ,maybe you are too...

[elcorazon]

I was being sarcastic, although I do think Kerry will win NH for sure, barring major world events between now & November.

[Gustaf]

I was being sarcastic, although I do think Kerry will win NH for sure, barring major world events between now & November.

New Hampshire does seem fairly likely to go for Kerry. But I'd want a reliable poll before I get too certain abut it.

[CollectiveInterest]

We've discussed this already on another board. Going to a direct popular vote would be an absolute disaster, because in that case the large cities would pick the president. Look at how much Gore won just from big metropolitan areas alone. We may as well not even have a voting system if it went to direct popular vote. I know I'd quit voting.

While I concede the EC isn't going anywhere...

Are you saying that direct election would be less legitimate? Why?

[CollectiveInterest]

I worked in the election industry till 1998 as a pollster/media consultant - I have strong political leanings...  I hate both parties equally and hold both candidates in equivalent contempt...

What's your beef with GOP? Dems?

Do you have separate grievances against Kerry and Bush?

[Gustaf]

We've discussed this already on another board. Going to a direct popular vote would be an absolute disaster, because in that case the large cities would pick the president. Look at how much Gore won just from big metropolitan areas alone. We may as well not even have a voting system if it went to direct popular vote. I know I'd quit voting.

While I concede the EC isn't going anywhere...

Are you saying that direct election would be less legitimate? Why?

He got some odd views...but look at his username. It speaks for itself on this issue.

[zachman]

Who are you planning on voting for in November, as of now, Vorlon?

[classical liberal]

I'm going to write-in Sen. Sununu/fmr. Rep. Watts.

[Gustaf]

You're close to me politically Vorlon, judging from that post.

[mooster]

Vorlon,

On the prediction pages, you are listed as I-indep, but on the discussion pages, you are listed as I-california.  Also, I notice that your email address is @shaw.ca, which, when googled, turns up a canadian service provider.

Also, what happens when you plug your own demographics into your model (age, occupation/employer, level of education, etc.)?  Surely it does't return a high probability for a libertarian vote?

[Nym90]

Hmm, with that motto, and that avatar, are you Donald Trump by any chance, Mooster?

[Gustaf]

Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.

[Gustaf]

Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.

From a purely political point of view, what matters in not how many gay marriage voters there are, but rather how many single issue gay marriage voters there are.

There are, for reasons I personally have never been able to understand, a lot of voters who decide who to vote for on a single issue, regardless of the rest of what a candidate stands for.

The classic example of such a "wedge" issue (ie it can wedge a voter away from their usual voting pattern) is abortion.  

There are pro-choice people who would support Osama Bin Laden over Joan of Arc if Bin Laden was pro-choice and Joan was pro-life (and the other way around as well) -

From a GOP perspective, if just 1 in 25 Democratic voters feels strongly enough on the Gay Marriage issue to have it swing their vote, it might be enough to swing the state to the GOP.

If I was Bush I'd be polling the $%$$#@# out the gay marriage issue in Pennsylvania right now...

And I am sure he is... which is one of the reasons I am not a Republican...

All good points. But my point is that this doesn't really seem to be the case, since Kerry is doing pretty well despite the big majority against gay marriage. Also, look at the popular view of abortion. It suggests that the Dems have some potential for headway on gay marriage.

[Gustaf]

Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.

From a purely political point of view, what matters in not how many gay marriage voters there are, but rather how many single issue gay marriage voters there are.

There are, for reasons I personally have never been able to understand, a lot of voters who decide who to vote for on a single issue, regardless of the rest of what a candidate stands for.

The classic example of such a "wedge" issue (ie it can wedge a voter away from their usual voting pattern) is abortion.  

There are pro-choice people who would support Osama Bin Laden over Joan of Arc if Bin Laden was pro-choice and Joan was pro-life (and the other way around as well) -

From a GOP perspective, if just 1 in 25 Democratic voters feels strongly enough on the Gay Marriage issue to have it swing their vote, it might be enough to swing the state to the GOP.

If I was Bush I'd be polling the $%$$#@# out the gay marriage issue in Pennsylvania right now...

And I am sure he is... which is one of the reasons I am not a Republican...

All good points. But my point is that this doesn't really seem to be the case, since Kerry is doing pretty well despite the big majority against gay marriage. Also, look at the popular view of abortion. It suggests that the Dems have some potential for headway on gay marriage.

I am not saying the gay marriage issue WILL work for Bush, I am saying that there is enough of of chance that it MIGHT work, to give it a try.

I suspect Bush & Co will "test drive" the issue, i.e. pound Kerry with it in smaller state that is fairly cheap to buy media in (Iowa would be my pick) and see if the issue has any traction.... if it does, they will expand it to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, MIssori, WEst Virginia, etc,... if not... not...

Yeah, that seems liekly. Somehting I reacted to was that people apparently are more accepting of abortion then of gay marriage, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Siege40]

Do you think a similar attack on Madrid in America would lose the Republicans the White House? If so, where do you think the effects would be felt hardest, which states and why? Or do you believe that if there was a terror attack on that scale, that the Republicans would be doomed for re-election?

Siege40

[Gustaf]

Do you think a similar attack on Madrid in America would lose the Republicans the White House? If so, where do you think the effects would be felt hardest, which states and why? Or do you believe that if there was a terror attack on that scale, that the Republicans would be doomed for re-election?

Siege40

A terror attack would help Bush by creating an urge for strong leadership on national security, but hurt him by raising questions about his ability as CIC. Overall, I think it would help him, but that's my opinion.

[zachman]

Bush is betting that his claim that we have maimed al-Qaeda is true- and a terrorist attack here would not muster the same unity for him this time.

[Siege40]

I'm really surpirsed by how many people think that another terror attack will not hurt the Republicans. From all I've seen Bush wants to run on his National Security policy, if there's another terror attack doesn't that prove that it is ineffective, make it a poor issue for him? In my mind it would at least neutralize the issue as a good point for the Republicans to a niether advantage nor disadvantage.

I agree if there's enough time he'll come out as a strong leader, but if not couldn't the electorate say. "Why is this happening again on your watch?"

Never the less, I also hope we don't have to find out...

Siege40