2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[freedomburns]

In my third effort at a prediction I give all of the tossups to Bush.  Bush wins in this version, and this outcome is entirely possible.  This prediction obviates the importance of Missouri.  Missouri has voted with the winner in every election except 1956.  MO is a bellweather.  It is a border state at the intersection of the South, the Midwest and the Great Plains states.

This state is the crucial key to the 2004 election.  Whoever wins Missouri wins the election.  That is my current prediction.  I will stand by this one.  If Kerry can't win here, if his message does not resonate, he may not win the election.  He is currently 2 points down in the polls in MO.  That's up from 11 points down in early June.  It's mid-July now and there are three and a half months to go.

However: There are two Zogby polls from Missouri that show Kerry ahead.  One from May 28 had him up 3.3 points.  One from July 10 has him up 3.9 points.  I tend to discount Zogby, though, as they use a sample that includes people who are unlikely to vote.  There is a slight trend toward Kerry in their polling which may show hope.

If Kerry can carry a big state like Florida or Ohio, this may become a moot point.  I doubt this will happen in the current climate.  There are intangilbes to consider, like Jeb Bush.  Missouri is the key, and Kerry is behind.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3685

[freedomburns]

Excellent points Lunar.   Missouri does seem to track more toward the conservative lately.  But Iowa and Illinois still exert a strongly Democratic influence over it.  And it is on that Missippi River line of loose morals and fast waters that is less cohesively Republican like the Mountain states.

I'm just sayin, if I were Kerry's Karl Rove (and I sure hope he has one) I'd focus some money here.  I'm not so sure about Ohio.  I'm not ready to agree that it would go before MO; and Florida is just such an iffy proposition still.  It's a total crap in the wind for Kerry to invest a lot there.  With the way Jeb runs it and the Republican majority in the State legislature, I just can't be confident there.  I would focus on Missouri to win it.

Another (really lousy) strategy is to make sure you win New Hampshire and Nevada.  Totally doable, but this only give you a tie.  Does anyone know exactly how many of the State legislatures are controlled by the Republicans this year?  I know it is a strong Republican majority in state congresses.  Is it about 32 Republican and 18 Democrat?  Just a guess.

[freedomburns]

Thanks Harry.  Your map looks like 11 state houses split, 16 with both state houses for Dems and 23 with both for Reps.

That's a clear win for Bush in the event of a tie.  I think that everyone here should hope that that does not happen, even the Republicans.  If Bush wins, I hope he wins with a majority of the Electoral College.  A tie would have some danger of throwing the country into outright revolt, like a new revolution.  I'm serious.  You likely don't see the same things I see and hear the same things I hear.

[freedomburns]

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.  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

[freedomburns]

I think Dazzleman said it best:  The very presence of a Perot-type candidate illustrated Bush's weaknesses.

In that case, the very presence of a Ralph Nader-type candidate should illustrate Kerry's weaknesses.  

If it weren't for the reality of the five states that were so close in 2000 that Nader's votes arguably made the difference, more people would vote for him this time.  Also, he would be given a greater forum to expound his policies, like he should be.  The two-party system is rigged to maintain power stays with the two parties.  They have a virutal lock-hold on power in the US.

freedomburns