2004 User Predictions - Discussion (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:40:34 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 866012 times)
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« on: March 24, 2004, 05:12:49 PM »

I was thinking of how a Kerry-Richardson ticket might do.  If it was supported by McCain it would easily get the south west Arizona and New Mexico.  It would put Colorado back into play and may be able to keep Florida and Missouri interesting.  It may have no effect in Minnesota or Wisconsin.  Here is a possible 269 split.
Kerry-Richardson: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, Deleware, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Conn, RI, Mass and DC Bush-Cheney: the rest
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2004, 06:03:39 PM »

I just wanted to put out a model for an even 269. Though your right a lot of the states will be flipped from what I indicated.  I just wonder what will the really effect of the Hispanic vote be and not just in this election but in future elections since both parties are still trying to capture that vote right now.  Richardson's speech after the State of the Union was great - if he did run I think he could really animate the urban vote.  http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/RHOriginPD-1990.html  Hey it might even make Texas a competive vote.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2004, 06:55:03 PM »

So if their is that 269-269 tie the house will get to choose the president instead of the supreme court.

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_8453.shtml.html

Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2004, 12:03:54 PM »

Hmmm.  1864.  I might be getting too political but I don't actually think that Bush and Lincoln fall in the same category.  I think that Lincoln would not have won in the south but considering they were at the time waging a war against the North they opted not to vote at all.  Despite the civil war it was a surprisingly close election.  Thank God Lincoln won.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2004, 06:05:30 PM »

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWmcclellan.htm

George McClellan, the son of a surgeon, he was born in Philadelphia on 3rd December, 1826. He was educated at the University of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where in 1846 he graduated second in his class.

****

Although McClellan was a member of the Democratic Party he offered his services to President Abraham Lincoln on the outbreak of the American Civil War. He was placed in command of the Department of the Ohio with responsibility for holding the western area of Virginia. He did this successfully and after the Union Army was defeated by the Confederate Army at Bull Run, Lincoln appointed McClellan as commander of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan insisted that his army should undertake any new offensives until his new troops were fully trained.

In November, 1861 McClellan, who was only 34 years old, was made commander in chief of the Union Army. He developed a strategy to defeat the Confederate Army that included an army of 273,000 men. His plan was to invade Virginia from the sea and to seize Richmond and the other major cities in the South. McClellan believed that to keep resistance to a minimum, it should be made clear that the Union forces would not interfere with slavery and would help put down any slave insurrections.

McClellan appointed Allan Pinkerton to employ his agents to spy on the Confederate Army. His reports exaggerated the size of the enemy and McClellan was unwilling to launch an attack until he had more soldiers available. Under pressure from Radical Republicans in Congress, Abraham Lincoln decided in January, 1862, to appoint Edwin M. Stanton as his new Secretary of War.

Soon after this appointment Abraham Lincoln ordered McClellan to appear before a committee investigating the way the war was being fought. On 15th January, 1862, McClellan had to face the hostile questioning of Benjamin Wade and Zachariah Chandler. Wade asked McClellan why he was refusing to attack the Confederate Army. He replied that he had to prepare the proper routes of retreat. Chandler then said: "General McClellan, if I understand you correctly, before you strike at the rebels you want to be sure of plenty of room so that you can run in case they strike back." Wade added "Or in case you get scared". After McClellan left the room, Wade and Chandler came to the conclusion that McClellan was guilty of "infernal, unmitigated cowardice".

As a result of this meeting Abraham Lincoln decided he must find a way to force McClellan into action. On 31st January he issued General War Order Number One. This ordered McClellan to begin the offensive against the enemy before the 22nd February. Lincoln also insisted on being consulted about McClellan's military plans. Lincoln disagreed with McClellan's desire to attack Richmond from the east. Lincoln only gave in when the division commanders voted 8 to 4 in favour of McClellan's strategy. However, Lincoln no longer had confidence in McClellan and removed him from supreme command of the Union Army. He also insisted that McClellan left 30,000 men behind to defend Washington.

During the summer of 1862, McClellan and the Army of the Potomac, took part in what became known as the Peninsular Campaign. The main objective was to capture Richmond, the base of the Confederate government. McClellan and his 115,000 troops encountered the Confederate Army at Williamsburg on 5th May. After a brief battle the Confederate forces retreated South.

McClellan moved his troops into the Shenandoah Valley and along with John C. Fremont, Irvin McDowell and Nathaniel Banks surrounded Thomas Stonewall Jackson and his 17,000 man army. First Jackson attacked John C. Fremont at Cross Keys before turning on Irvin McDowell at Port Republic. Jackson then rushed his troops east to join up with Joseph E. Johnston and the Confederate forces fighting McClellan in the suburbs the city.

General Joseph E. Johnston with some 41,800 men counter-attacked McClellan's slightly larger army at Fair Oaks. The Union Army lost 5,031 men and the Confederate Army 6,134. Johnson was badly wounded during the battle and General Robert E. Lee now took command of the Confederate forces.

Major General John Pope, the commander of the new Army of Virginia, was instructed to move east to Blue Ridge Mountains towards Charlottesville. It was hoped that this move would help McClellan by drawing Robert E. Lee away from defending Richmond. Lee's 80,000 troops were now faced with the prospect of fighting two large armies: McClellan (90,000) and Pope (50,000)

Joined by Thomas Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate troops constantly attacked McClellan and on 27th June they broke through at Gaines Mill. Convinced he was outnumbered, McClellan retreated to James River. Abraham Lincoln, frustrated by McClellan's lack of success, sent in Major General John Pope, but he was easily beaten back by Jackson.

McClellan wrote to Abraham Lincoln complaining that a lack of resources was making it impossible to defeat the Confederate forces. He also made it clear that he was unwilling to employ tactics that would result in heavy casualties. He claimed that "ever poor fellow that is killed or wounded almost haunts me!" On 1st July, 1862, McClellan and Lincoln met at Harrison Landing. McClellan once again insisted that the war should be waged against the Confederate Army and not slavery.

Salmon Chase (Secretary of the Treasury), Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War) and vice president Hannibal Hamlin, who were all strong opponents of slavery, led the campaign to have McClellan sacked. Unwilling to do this, Abraham Lincoln decided to put McClellan in charge of all forces in the Washington area.

After the second battle of Bull Run, General Robert E. Lee decided to invade Maryland and Pennsylvania. On 10th September, 1862, he sent Thomas Stonewall Jackson to capture the Union Army garrison at Harper's Ferry and moved the rest of his troops to Antietam Creek. When McClellan heard that the Confederate Army had been divided, he decided to attack Lee. However, the Harper's Ferry garrison surrendered on 15th September and some of the men were able to rejoin Lee.

On the morning of 17th September, 1862, McClellan and Major General Ambrose Burnside attacked Robert E. Lee at Antietam. The Union Army had over 75,300 troops against 37,330 Confederate soldiers. Lee held out until Ambrose Hill and reinforcements arrived from Harper's Ferry. The following day Lee and his army crossed the Potomac into Virginia unhindered.

It was the most costly day of the war with the Union Army having 2,108 killed, 9,549 wounded and 753 missing. The Confederate Army had 2,700 killed, 9,024 wounded and 2,000 missing. As a result of being unable to achieve a decisive victory at Antietam, Abraham Lincoln postponed the attempt to capture Richmond. Lincoln was also angry that McClellan with his superior forces had not pursued Robert E. Lee across the Potomac

Abraham Lincoln now wanted McClellan to go on the offensive against the Confederate Army. However, McClellan refused to move, complaining that he needed fresh horses. Radical Republicans now began to openly question McClellan's loyalty. "Could the commander be loyal who had opposed all previous forward movements, and only made this advance after the enemy had been evacuated" wrote George W. Julian. Whereas William P. Fessenden came to the conclusion that McClellan was "utterly unfit for his position".

Frustrated by McClellan unwillingness to attack, Abraham Lincoln recalled him to to Washington with the words: "My dear McClellan: If you don't want to use the Army I should like to borrow it for a while." On 7th November Lincoln removed McClellan from all commands and replaced him with Ambrose Burnside.

In 1864 stories began to circulate that McClellan was seeking the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. Worried by the prospect of competing with the former head of the Union Army, it is claimed that Lincoln offered McClellan a new command in Virginia. McClellan refused and accepted the nomination. In an attempt to obtain unity, Lincoln named a Southern Democrat, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, as his running mate.

During the campaign McClellan declared the war a "failure" and urged "immediate efforts for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the states, or other peaceable means, to the end that peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States". However, McClellan added that this could happen when "our adversaries are willing to negotiate upon the basis of reunion." McClellan made it clear that he disliked slavery because it weakened the country but he opposed "forcible abolition as an object of the war or a necessary condition of peace and reunion."

The victories of Ulysses S. Grant, William Sherman, George Meade, Philip Sheridan and George H. Thomas in the summer of 1864 reinforced the idea that the Union Army was close to bringing the war to an end. This helped Lincoln's presidential campaign and with 2,216,067 votes, comfortably beat McClellan (1,808,725) in the election. McClellan carried only Delaware, Kentucky and New Jersey.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2004, 06:02:25 PM »

Kerry/Richardson Ticket




http://www.alternet.org/story.htmlStoryID=18294

a book to get attention and help America get to know him.  To bad it doesn't come out till 2005.  Some say why settle for VP when he can get the top job in 2008

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040329/nym177_1.html

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/8303907.htm

Even Rush likes him

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site__031904/content/on_the_rushwire.guest.html

But the T-shirt isn't selling

http://www.krqe.com/politics/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY%5BPolitics%5D=ID&ID%5BPolitics%5D=4627

If in the next 4 years he can get Puerto Rico to become a state he could get even more electoral votes.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=140-03082004

He helped lower gas prices in 2000. Do you think people will forget that whole thing of nuclear-secrets getting stolen though. His time as Energy Sec might hurt or help.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040401/1053976.asp

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=140-03082004



Kerry/Richardson 329
Bush and Co  209


And speaking of Bush and Co I have read that Powell and Armitage won't be in the next adminstration but they won't tell anyone that until after the election
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040401/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_iraq_vulcans_040401081733
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2004, 06:59:54 PM »

Can't really say why I guess but I really just want to see the Kerry/Richardson ticket. Though I think their are a couple competative combos.

Just thinking about a debate between Cheney and Richardson would be interesting.  
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040402/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_pelosi
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2004, 11:52:45 AM »

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_vice_president

Any extremely different and realistic  maps with these different VP possibilities.  
Especially Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, William Cohen, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

aslo
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack
Rep. Dick Gephardt
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards
Bob Kerrey
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2004, 03:01:01 PM »

OK so I don't think it will happen but I was reading today about a possible 3 way race between Kerry Bush and McCain (4 way if you count Nader but a McCain independent canadcy would probably obscure any Nader influence.  Any predictions as to what the map would be.  I think McCain could grab Arizona, maybe New Mexico and probably California.  McCain would grab many centrists but I don't think he would split the Republican party in half a lot of toss-ups could change directions and even some solid states could become toss-ups.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2004, 06:15:23 PM »
« Edited: May 28, 2004, 06:18:12 PM by khirkhib »



My newest prediction. slight up-date from the last.
Derived from information from http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

Georgia soon to become a toss up

Also Dave I love the update to the map prediction part of your web page.  Finally their might be some traction in changes in the mean map prediction instead of having Ohio frozen solid Bush and Wisconsin solid Kerry.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2004, 10:39:12 AM »
« Edited: May 29, 2004, 11:01:44 AM by khirkhib »

Come on be fair to the others.  Lets take a look at States Rights map

My map is assuming a bush collapse.  I like my confidance map better because under a collapse situation I think those will be the states that are with in 5% difference.  Your map is good but I think at this point that the Bush collapse has better odds despite Kerry's efforts.  

For the Bush or Kerry sweep the race cannot be about Republic vs Democratic and I think that the build up will not let the race be purely political.  This election is about the future of America.

For the Bush sweep he wants Patriotic America vs Intelectual Elitists.  Being that their are much much more Patrotic Americans than Elitists it would be a huge sweep and the whole middle would fall to Bush. Your map probably doesn't express that well enough.

For the Kerry sweep he wants Freedom Lovers vs NeoCons.  If Bush becomes defined by his actions and those he surrounds himself by as a NeoCon and not a republican much of that solid and stout support that he is showing right now will have a reason not to vote for him.  Being proud republicans i doubt that Kerry would pick up those votes but they will not be enthused to vote at all.

Much of this depends on how it plays out on election day though.  I think that the NeoCons have enough control over polling sources that their will show a close election up to the day of it.  Even if it is not a reflection of reality.  The Anti-Bush people are skittish enough over losing the last one that if it looks close they will vote in droves.  Most Republicans at this point will believe that the election is close but in the states that I show as new toss-ups will think that with-in their states it will not be close and so will much more likely decide not to vote.

Its an exteme but it is rationalized and valid.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2004, 07:18:45 AM »

My first post! I'm a political science student... live in VA, go to school in SC.

My first comment: Virginia is not moving to the Dems! If anything, it's becoming more Republican. The legislature was dominated by the DNC less than a decade ago. Now, the GOP is over 2/3 in the House and 25/40 or so in the Senate. Mark Warner got elected by running as a pro-choice Republican.

The state has had a lot of Northerners move in, but these 'immigrants' tend to adopt similar voting patterns to the locals (there could be self-selection, but Merle Black of Emory thinks it is a real phenomenon). In fact, the emerging monopoly on white voters by the GOP in the South guarantees its power base there. For many people, the debate is GOP vs. not voting.

To some extent, that trend is being mirrored nationally. As the DNC continues to fancy itself a coalition of minority interests, 'majority' interests will shift to the GOP. The Upper Midwest is particularly fertile ground for Republicans, as is the Pacific Northwest. The Northeast is tougher, but I expect the shift will impact that region as well.

I love it when people say things like. "GOP strengthening in all parts of the country amongst majority of population smooth sailing from here till dawn."  OK I'm paraphrasing.  Niether party is going to led themselves get caught off guard and lose the majority of its constiuency.  Since the party's are diametrically they will shift along the political spectrum relative to each other more or less relative to each other.  This political era has seen a major shift to the right in political ideology.  The democratic party in the 1990s is about as liberal as the republican party was in the late 1960s. It didn't mean that everybody quit the democratic party and joined the republican though since the party is composed and at the will of its constituents the whole dialog (for both parties) shifted to the right.  The has disenfranchised the the left wing of the democratic party and has empowered some of the fringe right groups of the republican party (the neocons).  If anything though this relation is pendular and I hope that we stand at the dawn of a new day for liberalism.  And I know that their are those of you who think that I'm just rearranging  chairs on a ship that's going down.  I think though the democratic party is increasing going to appeal to many American's with a fiscally wise and freedom embracing philosophy.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2004, 05:17:50 AM »

WOW Everybody should check out the NY Times Electoral college Map it is amazing how much info they have in this feature.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index.html
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2004, 05:44:40 AM »

True.  Congratulations Dave.
Logged
khirkhib
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 967


« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2004, 03:56:21 AM »

Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

Well, what I have heard recently is that that has become exactly the plan.  Kerry has embraced Clinton and asked him to spend the next three months campaigning around the southern swing states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and such.  

I think it's a great idea.  Clinton still has the same old Elvis magic.  He gives a speech better than Monika Lewinski smokes a cigar. Wink  There are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks who say that this was one of Gore's (many) big errors.  The Lewinski/Jones debacle was still fresh and Gore thought that Clinton was too tainted by it to be much use as a campaigner.  I think that was a poor decision, but hindsight is 20-20.

Clinton is going to stump for Kerry, and I think it can only help.  The polls still show everything very tight.  The race is a close one and people are sticking to their guns.  It's too close to call right now.  I don't expect a big bump from the conventions, either.

freedomburns

Having Clinton Campaign in the gravy states is a good idea. The gravy states are the ones that he has an off-chance of winning and doesn't need to count on.  Even if Clinton can help make them competive increases the  number of toss up states and makes Bush have to spread his attention thinner.
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 0.068 seconds with 13 queries.