2004 User Predictions - Discussion (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:08:26 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 866370 times)
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« on: March 31, 2004, 12:10:27 PM »
« edited: March 31, 2004, 01:38:12 PM by JLD »


Let's have a look...
John Adams
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
James K Polk
Abraham Lincoln (though not strictly one term)
William McKinley (dito)
Calvin Coolidge (dito)
John F Kennedy


You left several one term Presidents off your list.  You include John Tyler, who was not elected but served most of a term, but you did not include Andrew Johnson, for whom the same is also true.

Here is a COMPLETE list of Presidents who have served one FULL term (did not die in office, or succeed into the office):

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
James Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Rutherford Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
William Taft
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
George HW Bush

If the question is who was the most successful one-term President, from the above list I would choose James Polk.

Presidents who died in office before completing a term:
William Henry Harrison
Zachary Taylor
James Garfield
Warren Harding
John Kennedy

Lincoln and McKinley did complete a full term, and were shot early in their second terms.

Presidents who succeeded the office from the Vice Presidency and were NEVER elected President in their own right:
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Chester Arthur
Gerald Ford

Coolidge was elected President after serving the last 1.5 years of Harding's term.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2004, 04:18:37 PM »
« Edited: April 09, 2004, 04:53:27 PM by Fritz »

This is my latest confidence map, which I think definitively shows the current state of the election:



Solid Bush: 176 (21 states)
Lean Bush: 46 (5 states) (176 + 46 = 222)
Solid Kerry: 172 (12 states and D.C.)
Lean Kerry: 52 (5 states) (172 + 52 = 224)
Tossups: 92 (7 states)

I have consulted several polling sites to make this as accurate as possible.

The 10 states indicated as "lean" for either candidate, I consider highly unlikely to go the other way.  If both candidates can count on their lean states, that gives a best-case scenario for Bush of 314, for Kerry of 316.  Any prediction higher than that (supersoulty's, for example) is wishful thinking on somebody's part.  The seven tossup states on this map are where the election will be won or lost.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2004, 05:21:23 PM »

Out of your seven 'tossup' states, I think all are leaning very narrowly to Bush, and I suspect he'll win them all.  On the other hand I would include Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota as tossups.

I, of course, think all 7 tossups will go to Kerry, but hey, we're all entitled to a little wishful thinking!  Smiley  Within reason, of course.

Iowa, Minnesota and Oregon are defintely not tossups.  It's possible they'll switch back to Bush, but not very likely.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2004, 05:46:33 PM »

What're you basing this on?  Current polls?

I think this site has the best compilation of polling data: http://www.davidwissing.com/bushkerrystate2004.html

Iowa:  Rasmussen has Kerry ahead by 10 points.
Minnesota:  Rasmussen only has Kerry leading by 3 points, but the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's poll has him up 12.  Trust me, I'm from Minnesota, Bush will not win here.
Oregon:  The only poll I see is from the Oregonian, which has Kerry up by 5 points.

This site essentially shows dead heats in my seven tossups.  This is not the only site I look at, I just mention it because it has the most complete information.

I also think historical data has some relevance.  Iowa and Oregon have not voted Republican for President since 1984, and Minnesota not since 1972.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2004, 06:14:03 PM »

Looking at the map in Vorlon's signature, his "marginal Bush" and "marginal Kerry" states include my 7 tossups, plus the 3 we've been disagreeing about.  Maybe I should ask Vorlon where he gets his information.

Other than that, my map agrees with Vorlon, except that he has Tennessee as solid for Bush.

I might put Tennessee in the solid Bush column, but I'm not putting Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota in the tossups!  No way.  Especially not Minnesota.  Smiley
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2004, 08:51:34 PM »

Looking at the map in Vorlon's signature, his "marginal Bush" and "marginal Kerry" states include my 7 tossups, plus the 3 we've been disagreeing about.  Maybe I should ask Vorlon where he gets his information.

Other than that, my map agrees with Vorlon, except that he has Tennessee as solid for Bush.

I might put Tennessee in the solid Bush column, but I'm not
putting Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota in the tossups!  No way.  Especially not Minnesota.  Smiley


I just noticed that since I posted this, Vorlon has changed his signature map!  He now has Minnesota and Oregon in the "likely Kerry" color (equates to my "lean Kerry").  Now our maps agree even more.  If Vorlon's "marginal" equals my "tossup", we only disagree on two states- Iowa and Tennessee.

Vorlon, you reading this?  Comment?
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2004, 10:06:29 PM »

I suppose it depends what poll you read.  As I mentioned earlier, Rasmussen has Kerry ahead in Iowa by 10.  That would make Iowa solid for Kerry, by your logic (if you believe Rasmussen).

The states I've designated tossups have some polls with Kerry leading, some with Bush leading.  Hmmmm, which poll to choose.  At this stage of the game, I think it's more sensible just to call them tossups, they could go either way.

You're probably right about Tennessee.  For some reason Zogby and a few other other pollsters consider the state "in play".

You forgot to mention Florida/New Hampshire/New Mexico Smiley  Thanks for the feedback
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2004, 12:31:25 AM »
« Edited: April 10, 2004, 01:13:51 AM by Fritz »

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.

Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2004, 06:14:22 PM »

Here is my official prediction right now:

Kerry manages to pick off West Virginia and New Hampshire, and hold on to all Gore 2000 states.  Florida and Ohio are very close, but Bush holds on to them in the end.  This results in an electoral tie.

Bush cruises to an easy win in the ensuing election in the House of Representatives.  In the Senate, however, Democrats have picked up seats in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, and Oklahoma, while the Republicans only gain a seat in Georgia.  This results in a 51-48-1 Democratic majority in the Senate.  The new Senate elects John Edwards as Vice-President (ok, assuming Edwards is the nominee).

Winners:
George W Bush, President (R)
John Edwards, Vice-President (D)

IT COULD HAPPEN!


What do you think?
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2004, 08:05:37 PM »


What won't happen?  There won't be a tie, or the Democrats won't take the Senate?  Or both?  Both things appear very possible.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2004, 08:12:50 PM »

I haven't really been watching all the Senate races, I'm just going off of RightWingNut's predictions in the Senate prediction thread.  And he's Republican!
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2004, 07:07:45 AM »

Right Wing Nut is a Democrat. A Troll.

And you say that because.....he claims to be Republican, but makes a prediction favoring the Democrats?  Is that your definition of the word "troll"?  Maybe I should accuse Boss Tweed of trolling.

No offense intended Boss, just making a point.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2004, 06:40:49 PM »

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.


Dream on....this is not going to be anything like 1984.  It's going to be more like 2000, possibly even with a state needing to be recounted. (Hopefully not Florida this time.)  You are living in a complete Fantasyland if you really think Bush is gonna stomp on Kerry that drastically.  Oh wait, you're from Florida....maybe your address actually is in Fantasyland.    Smiley
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2004, 04:48:17 PM »

UPDATED Kerry vs. Bush:


Bush/Cheney 51.5%, 306 EV's
Kerry/Edwards 48.0%, 232 EV's

---

Kerry could lose the PV by 5% and still win the election; expect Bush to rack up votes in the south.

Bush won't win Iowa.  Mark my words.
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2004, 08:29:19 AM »


I have seen this point rather heavily disputed, it was posted in the predictions in one of the threads for prediction comments.  The argument was that because the 12th amendment says "majority of whole number of senators" and does not mention the VP, that in this case the VP does not get to break a tie.  They would just have to keep voting until a candidate got a majority of the actual senator's votes
Logged
Fritz
JLD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,668
United States


« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2004, 07:07:07 PM »

However since the Senate has never elected a Vice President, there is no precedent to call upon in this case.

Actually they did once...1836.  Some southeren electors wouldn't vote for Van Buren's running mate, something to do with having a slave as a common-law wife and raising their children as free.  So that VP election did go the Senate, where the end result was not a tie.
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 0.031 seconds with 11 queries.