2004 User Predictions - Discussion (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:37:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 User Predictions - Discussion (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion  (Read 866229 times)
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« on: February 20, 2004, 06:04:47 PM »

The election goes to the House of Representatives

What a nightmare scenario.  Does anyone have any thoughts about the possibility of another result that gives Bush the electoral majority but has the Democrats winning the popular vote?
It's very early to consider that possibility. Furthermore, it would be historic. I believe the popular vote has never been lost by an incumbent who had no challenge for the nomination, and who had a net gain for his party in the House over the two preceding House elections.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2004, 11:29:50 PM »

The election goes to the House of Representatives

What a nightmare scenario.  Does anyone have any thoughts about the possibility of another result that gives Bush the electoral majority but has the Democrats winning the popular vote?
It's very early to consider that possibility. Furthermore, it would be historic. I believe the popular vote has never been lost by an incumbent who had no challenge for the nomination, and who had a net gain for his party in the House over the two preceding House elections.

Those are some significant qualifiers.

Is there anyone other than George W. Bush who is in that box? Smiley
GWB is in excellent company, since 1860 (GOP vs DEM) the situation has happened five other times:
Lincoln 1864
T Roosevelt 1904
F Roosevelt 1936
Eisenhower 1956
Reagan 1984

Every incumbent in that period with both those other factors against lost reelection (4 times).
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2004, 12:33:21 PM »

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)?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2004, 11:52:55 PM »

Ok go to the predictions part and type in

States Rights  as the user name. It works for me.
I can't complain about the map. It is almost the same as my update after the Tuesday results. Just switch WI for PA and NH. I figure I'll make adjustments when the VP is announced as it may carry some weight in a state or two.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2004, 10:52:22 PM »

Vorlon - your map interests me.  Cool to see a map that has a GOP win without FL or OH.  Why do you think the GOP will win Oregon and more particularly Washington, while losing Florida, Ohio, and WV?


My thoughts as well. I see from your further posts some of your thinking. It would be an interesting campaign that can get out the Dem vote in OH yet leave WA suppressed so that it goes to the GOP.

I do think that the upper midwest states have a lot of possiblility to go GOP, despite the current surge for Kerry. The turnout in the cities of the upper midwest are the critical element for Democratic hopes. The rural/suburban vote tends to be more consistent in its turnout for the GOP.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2004, 09:17:48 AM »

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.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2004, 01:06:49 AM »


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.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2004, 10:38:23 AM »
« Edited: March 13, 2004, 10:40:56 AM by muon2 »


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... Sad

He stopped updating the redistricting scorecard after he moved to GMU. He has some interesting work at elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2004, 02:09:04 PM »

You could look at it that way or you could look at it like this. Bush says we are in a continuing fight against terrorists and we need to keep the pressure on. If we are attacked he could just say "This is why you need to stick with me, what would Kerry do in this situation?"

Bush would be all: 'We said from the beginning that this would be a tough fight. But, my fellow Americans, we're not giving in. We will not falter, we will not retreat, we will not fail. This does nothing to our morale and our determination. We stand as firmly now as we have ever done. We will not be intimidated or blackmailed by terrorists. 3 years ago America was attacked. We proved then that we will not be defeated. I intend to continue this fight, etc,etc'

He could easily make it work. I think most Amiercans would buy the message, not the hard-core Dems maybe, but they were never in the equation anyway.
I think this is Bush's strongest message. It also seems to be the item on which he consistently polls best.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2004, 09:48:58 AM »

I do not see a bad economy right now. Every since mid-2002 tourism is back up and they are flocking our state. The U.S. has taken a while to get over the 9/11 shock and the Clinton inherited recession.

It doesn't matter what you 'see' but how things actually are. I don't what you mean by 'Clinton inherited', but the economy was not actually going down when he left office. And 9/11 has little or nothing to do with the problems that the US and the rest of the Western world are expereinceing in economy.
Parts of the economy were already in decline by Jan 2001. In the tech sector, new starts and job projects for small firms and freelancers were diminishing starting as early as Jan 2000. The stock market reflected the loss of new contracts with its decline beginning in Mar 2000.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2004, 11:15:38 PM »

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.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2004, 01:24:02 AM »

I see striking similarities to the 1916 election and this current election. Any thoughts?

I'd make a comparison with either 1900 or 1948. Both had incumbents running after a war-time presidency. Both incumbent administrations made foreign policy and security a more important feature than domestic economy. The Spanish-American war had a pretext that was often questioned and was essentially a unilateral action. The reorganization of Homeland Security in the Federal Government is the most sweeping since Truman's reorganization after WWII. Neither had a sweeping majority of the popular vote: McKinley 51.7%, Truman 49.5%.

In the EC: 1900 McKinley 292-155, 1948 Truman 303-189-39.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2004, 12:33:03 PM »

The statement about CO is interesting. If you were living on Mars for the last three years, and only had the stats from 2000 to go on, you could reasonably guess thta CO was more in play than WV. Bush had 52% in WV, but only 51% in CO, so Bush must a greater fraction of his 2000 voters in WV to lose it, than to lose CO. Of course the thrid party vote was much higher in CO, and I didn't consider it. But the point is that a naive look puts CO in the battleground.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2004, 06:17:17 PM »

that's good, and the original map was good as well
On the north-south map, shouldn't Alaska go with the north?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2004, 08:30:23 AM »

And if you don't mind my asking, what are the 5 polls I should be looking at?  

OK, I've taken this one step further.  Assuming I'm right, and there are only 7 states in question.  Kerry needs 46 of those 92 votes to pull off a win.  This can be done in one of the following ways:

Florida, either Penn or Ohio
Florida, Wisconsin, 2 of WV/NM/NH
Penn, Ohio, 1 of Wisc/WV/NM (not NH, that produces a tie)

For all you Bush fans out there, he needs 48 of the 92, which can be done by:

Florida, Penn
Florida, Ohio, 1 other
Florida, Wisc, WV, NM, NH (a tie without NH)
Penn, Ohio, Wisc
Penn, Ohio, 2 of WV/NM/NH

For either side- if Florida is lost, both Pennsylvania and Ohio, and at least one other battleground state, are needed to win.


That's why Bush will put whatever resources are needed into Florida.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2004, 11:32:11 AM »

I think most of the Democrats are upset because they are starting to realize it's like '84 all over again and they don't want to accept the fact of it yet.

Nah...Bush is no reagan, the economy is no Reagan...
I don't expect a 1984, and I agree that Bush is no Reagan, but the economy is not so different than 1984. The early eighties featured a significant recession, especially in the Midwest. Think Farm-Aid concert and "Rain on the Scarecrow" by John Mellencamp. Many other parts of the mdwestern economy were also suffering. The economy was picking up by 1984, but by no means were all doing well.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2004, 03:18:53 PM »

How many of you plan on considering a change to your predictions after Kerry's VP is announced?

Personally, I think a lot could hinge on it.  I'm not a believer of a landslide in 2004.  I think this will be won on the margin, where factors like a VP pick can make a big difference.  

So I'm not even going to predict state-by-state until I know who Kerry's running mate is.

I will, of course, still predict a Kerry victory, but a very, very close one.
I think its worth making a prediction to have something on the record. Saying that, I think the the VP choice is well worth a revisit to the prediction map. I don't think a lot will hinge on it, but one or two states may.

My current predictions dates immediately after Super Tuesday. I expect my next update will follow the Democrat VP selection.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2004, 09:30:57 PM »

Lunar's map with 171 is very close to the base of states that voted 52% or more for Gore in 2000. The only difference would be to remove the rest of ME and VT for a total of 165. Barring a stunning collapse by Kerry or amazing success to rally voters behind Bush, it seems like a reasonable bottom line for Kerry.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #18 on: June 05, 2004, 09:07:00 PM »

Updated Prediction for you viewing pleasure/displeasure.



R-319
D-219

Does that person think that Red=Rep and Blue=Dem.

That is MY Prediction Wink And Republican IS red and Dem Blue. Always been that way. I will now stay with the traditional colors.

Weirdo non-conformist Wink Roll Eyes Tongue
Not only non-conformist, but non-traditional. In the 1970's and 80's TV more frequently used R=blue. Only in the 1990's did I see R=red.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #19 on: October 09, 2004, 05:41:20 PM »

Alright, my map is up!  How do I post it?
It is posted in the predictions area. The image is here:

If you quote this message you'll see the link to your map.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2004, 08:05:24 AM »

My prediction-the three states that'll really determine it are WI, OH and WI. If Bush wins OH, he wins; if Bush wins NM and WI, he wins; if Bush win OH and NM he wins, if Bush wins OH and WI he wins (4 possibilities).

If Kerry wins Ohio and Wisconsin he wins; if Kerry wins Ohio and New Mexico he wins (2 options).

Therefore, a 66% chance of Bush winning (and I predict NM will go Kerry, WI will go Bush and OH will bve very close-but for Bush)
Of your four scenarios for Bush, two are redundant. If Bush wins OH, he wins, so in that case it doesn't matter what happens in WI and NM. I would also add IA to the mix, since it can pair with WI just as NM can for a win.

I would amend your analysis to read:

Four states will determine the election in a close race: OH, WI, IA, and NM.

Bush wins in three cases:
1) Win OH
2) Win WI and IA
3) Win WI and NM

Kerry wins in two cases:
1) Win OH and WI
2) Win OH, IA and NM
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2004, 05:00:43 PM »

Note that if the current "Most Recent Predictions" map is correct, we'll be stuck waiting for Hawaii to finish counting its ballots before we get the final result. 
I suspect that HI will not be the last state to finish counting ballots this year.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 13 queries.