2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Siege40]

How did Kerry win the Democratic Primaries when such sensible people as Gustaf, Miamiu and myself don't like him? I'm really curious how Kerry managed it, it really seems like the worst fluke imaginable. Does anyone know how he turned it around? I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the media.

Siege40

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How did Kerry win the Democratic Primaries when such sensible people as Gustaf, Miamiu and myself don't like him? I'm really curious how Kerry managed it, it really seems like the worst fluke imaginable. Does anyone know how he turned it around? I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the media.

BOTOX coupled with a suicidal Dean

[elcorazon]

here's my current map:

[Gustaf]

How did Kerry win the Democratic Primaries when such sensible people as Gustaf, Miamiu and myself don't like him? I'm really curious how Kerry managed it, it really seems like the worst fluke imaginable. Does anyone know how he turned it around? I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the media.

BOTOX coupled with a suicidal Dean

Lol...somehow he managed to win the Iowa caucus, why I have no idea. The rest was just momentum and his percieved electability, originating in his winning primaries.

[Siege40]

That's my point Kerry won... because he won... you can understand my massive sense of confusion. :S

Siege40

[Gustaf]

That's my point Kerry won... because he won... you can understand my massive sense of confusion. :S

Siege40

Well, he came from nowhere for no obvious reason. The key is why he won Iowa. From then on it was pure momentum and perfectly explainable, even though it doesn't make sense, of course.

[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.

[classical liberal]

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.

[classical liberal]

That's my point Kerry won... because he won... you can understand my massive sense of confusion. :S

Siege40

Well, he came from nowhere for no obvious reason. The key is why he won Iowa. From then on it was pure momentum and perfectly explainable, even though it doesn't make sense, of course.

He won Iowa because his campaingn organization was able to accomodate the unforseen magnitude of the turn-out at the Caucuses.  Plus, Dean and Gephart toppled each-other.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[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.

[classical liberal]

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.

[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.

[muon2]

That's my point Kerry won... because he won... you can understand my massive sense of confusion. :S

Siege40

Well, he came from nowhere for no obvious reason. The key is why he won Iowa. From then on it was pure momentum and perfectly explainable, even though it doesn't make sense, of course.

We all agree that the primary schedule was designed to create a speedy nominee. That explains the momentum factor. I think that Kerry understood the schedule effect and made two critical moves late in 2003. His campaign was flat, so he replaced his campaign head and then bet 6 million dollars with a mortgage that a win in Iowa would sweep the table.

His bet paid off for two reasons. He was right about the schedule effect. He was lucky that Gephardt and Dean went at each other so hard. The result was that he was in the right place to take advantage of the situation. Had there been another week before the caucus, I suspect that Edwards would have been on top, and he'd now be the nominee.

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

Kerry better define himself and quit all the "Bush is bad for this and bad for that and yada yada yada". I understand you are supposed to talk a little "smack" about your opponent but when it's ALL you hear out of a candidate it's going to get old real real quick. Of course the liberal media will bury most of the negative stuff about Kerry.

[© tweed]

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.

[Siege40]

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.

Ya, the Saudi's introduced 'Democratic Reform' in the 70s. We can all see what wonders it has done. They were going to introduce a system of reform starting with municiple democratic elections in '74. It never even got that far. I would not expect any better this time around.

Siege40

[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.

[© tweed]

I think that if Bush is re-elected, there will be an anti-GOP "movement" if you will, and after huge losses in 2006 (compatable to 1994 for the Dems), they will be forced to go moderate for '08 (Giuliani, McCain.)

[Siege40]

I think that if Bush is re-elected, there will be an anti-GOP "movement" if you will, and after huge losses in 2006 (compatable to 1994 for the Dems), they will be forced to go moderate for '08 (Giuliani, McCain.)

Giuliani has a lot of skeletons in his closet, I'm not sure something like the Federal ticket is the place for him, a Senator or Congressman sure. McCain is a moderate right? If so I like the guy. I've seen him in interviews, he seems personable unlike some Presidents and Presidential nominees.

Siege40

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

McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

[CTguy]

That's bull.  

If it looks like a duck and quacks a duck then it's a freaking duck.

His voting record is clearly republican on a wide range of issues.  He is less moderate than many Republican senators.  

[© tweed]

McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

LOL!  Name one Democrat in the senate with a 60% ecnomic and social conservative rating.  You can't do it!  McCain is to the right of every democrat in the senate ecnomically and socially.  He is also to the right of every senate Dem in foreign affairs except Zell Miller.

I don't go around saying Zell Miller is a Republican, because that is not true.  And saying McCain is a Democrat is just as absurd.

[12th Doctor]

McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

McCain isn't a Democrat.  As Republican Senators go, he is probably in the middle when it comes to ideology.