The desert, the Pacific coast, the Northeast +FL + IL

[Shira]

will vote Kerry.

Kerry – 275
Bush – 263

That’s my prediction on 06/27/2004 09:05 EST.

[AuH2O]

Anyone who calls VA for Kerry is an idiot. End of thread.

[Keystone Phil]

Shira, calling Michigan for Bush and Virginia for Kerry doesn't make much sense.

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

So Bush sweeps the midwest, loses Virginia yet wins WVA and Florida? Interesting.

[Shira]

In the last 20 years the GOP are strengthening in the North-Center and constantly loosing ground in FL, VA, AZ, and NV.   In FL, for example, the pace is around 0.5% per year.
In the Deep South they are stable around the 55%-58%. In the mid-West and North-West they are growing rapidly but it is immaterial. The Dems are growing very strongly in the North-East, but here again, it’s immaterial, except for NH.

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

In the last 20 years the GOP are strengthening in the North-Center and constantly loosing ground in FL, VA, AZ, and NV.   In FL, for example, the pace is around 0.5% per year.
In the Deep South they are stable around the 55%-58%. In the mid-West and North-West they are growing rapidly but it is immaterial. The Dems are growing very strongly in the North-East, but here again, it’s immaterial, except for NH.

That map may be true in 2008. This year? Naw.

[Shira]

we would get the following:

Kerry - 183
Bush - 177
Tos   - 178

[Reds4]

I would definitely bet money that Bush does better in VA than Michigan. I see no trend of Republicans improving in Michigan. MN and WI yes, but not Michigan.

[TeePee4Prez]

Funny I can't even say what PA is trending... Eastern part Demcoratic, Western Republican, am I right?  PA is a long state to travel through E to W.

[elcorazon]

I like your map, shira.  I disagree with it, but I like the boldness.  You have a theory, not even a crazy one.  You believe it to extreme I think.  More likely, Kerry takes a couple of the Midw. states (MN, IA, MI), loses VA (close).  FL is not as simple as you think, I suspect, but OH may be winnable.  I think you could be right about the SW desert, but maybe 4 more years before AZ swings DEM.

[Shira]

In 1988 Bush got there 60%. From this I subtract 3.8% which is half his nationwide margin of victory. So the real power of the GOP in AZ 88 was 56.2.
In 2000 they got (combined with Buchanan) 51.8. So during these 12 years they lost 4.4%. The population of AZ has the highest growth rate in the nation: 3.4% (FL and TX are second with 2.1%).  The 3.4% reflects the NET growth: immigrants + new born - emigrants - dead. It is more or less safe to say that 20% of the 2004 voters in AZ have not participated in the 2000 election there. The question is who are these 20% ?

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

In 1988 Bush got there 60%. From this I subtract 3.8% which is half his nationwide margin of victory. So the real power of the GOP in AZ 88 was 56.2.
In 2000 they got (combined with Buchanan) 51.8. So during these 12 years they lost 4.4%. The population of AZ has the highest growth rate in the nation: 3.4% (FL and TX are second with 2.1%).  The 3.4% reflects the NET growth: immigrants + new born - emigrants - dead. It is more or less safe to say that 20% of the 2004 voters in AZ have not participated in the 2000 election there. The question is who are these 20% ?

Who says all 20% are registered? And how many registered voters out of that 20% are going to vote? Take the national average turnout. Around 50%. So 50% of 20% would be 10%. Then about 30% of those registered probably don't vote. So 7% should be the true figure more then likely.

[struct310]

Again about AZ...Im not even going to bother explaining why again Shira.  Kerry couldnt win the state in a close or even moderately close election.  Its all about local issues here and the local issues are anti dem at this time.  

[cwelsch]

Kerry'll win Minnesota and Wisconsin and Iowa will come to him from the primary effect.  Arizona and Virginia will go to Bush.

Nevada will be very close and go Kerry with Badnarik pulling the margin of victory, as will New Hampshire with an even bigger Libertarian turnout.  Ohio I don't know, but ideally it will go to Kerry again with Badnarik pulling the margin of victory.  Just like Nader spoiled FL and NH in 2000, Badnarik and the Libertarians will spoil at least one if not three or four states.

[ATFFL]

Kerry'll win Minnesota and Wisconsin and Iowa will come to him from the primary effect.  Arizona and Virginia will go to Bush.

Nevada will be very close and go Kerry with Badnarik pulling the margin of victory, as will New Hampshire with an even bigger Libertarian turnout.  Ohio I don't know, but ideally it will go to Kerry again with Badnarik pulling the margin of victory.  Just like Nader spoiled FL and NH in 2000, Badnarik and the Libertarians will spoil at least one if not three or four states.

I know you love your party, but you need to come back to Earth.  THe best the Libertarians will do is 2% in any one state, and I would bet against them cracking .5% in more than 7 or so states, none of which will be competitive.

People vote Libertarian mainly in protest.  In close states they will feel their votes matter and will be less likely to vote for a third party.

If the media rallies behind the Libertarians as a true third party, they may get 3% in some places.

Sorry to do this to you, but your party is not a force in national politics.

[AuH2O]

Virginia is not going Democrat in 2004, it's not going Democrat in 2008, it's not going Democrat in 2012, and it's probably not going Democrat in 2020.

Poor political analysis and number-distortion can lead one down many roads. But they are fruitless nonetheless...

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

A vote for the following and what it equals:

Badnarik = Kerry

Nader = Bush

In conclusion, until the Libertarian party actually takes some initiative, they are a joke, plain and simple.

[Shira]

Who says all 20% are registered? And how many registered voters out of that 20% are going to vote? Take the national average turnout. Around 50%. So 50% of 20% would be 10%. Then about 30% of those registered probably don't vote. So 7% should be the true figure more then likely.

The total population growth in Arizona is 20%,so it is very likely that the number of actual voters grows by approximately the same rate

[MODU]

Shira,

If the population of AZ increased by 20%, the voting population would increase by 13-15%.  Need to take into account things like minimum in-state residence status before being eligible to vote as well as registration deadlines (for those who move to the state - for example).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

will vote Kerry.

Kerry – 275
Bush – 263

That’s my prediction on 06/27/2004 09:05 EST.

This is an interesting map of what will happen if trends continue as they have in the past (although its interesting you still have Oregon in the Dem column).

However,  I think you're rigid insistance that trends in the past will always portent trends in the future will fail you here, and the actual map won't look much like that.  

But I have to credit you for making strong predictions and sticking to them.  At least you're willing to be proven right or wrong.  We'll see what happens...

[khirkhib]

Their is nothing interesting about Oregon still being Democrat because it still is the going for Kerry

Oregon - 7 EC Votes              

Public Opion Strat  6/8                  Kerry +3.5
Moore Information 6/1                  Kerry +5
Zogby Interactive  6/15-6/20       Kerry +6.6
Zogby Interactive  6/1-6/6           Kerry +5.9
Rasmussen            5/1-31            Bush +1
Zogby Interactive   5/18-23         Kerry +5.4
Riley/KGW-TV          5/5-10           Bush +5
Research 2000       5/6-10           Kerry +2
ARG                        5/3-5/5          TIE
Research 2000       4/25-4/29      Kerry +2
Rasmussen            4/25               TIE
OSU                       3/19-4/7         Bush +2  
The Oregonian       3/4                 Kerry +5


These are the surveys.  All of them for Oregon.  True an OSU student led survey had Bush +2 back in April.  Rasmussen had Bush up by +1 once.  True an unknown group, Riley had Bush +5 in May one that The Volron described as "a bit of an 'oddly' constructed poll.  And every poll in June shows Kerry with a tight but not unconfortable lead.  Oregon may still be a toss up but even in polling section here it will soon tint pink.


It would be now but Rasmussen's Bush +1 is keeping it toss-up.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Their is nothing interesting about Oregon still being Democrat because it still is the going for Kerry

Oregon - 7 EC Votes              

Public Opion Strat  6/8                  Kerry +3.5
Moore Information 6/1                  Kerry +5
Zogby Interactive  6/15-6/20       Kerry +6.6
Zogby Interactive  6/1-6/6           Kerry +5.9
Rasmussen            5/1-31            Bush +1
Zogby Interactive   5/18-23         Kerry +5.4
Riley/KGW-TV          5/5-10           Bush +5
Research 2000       5/6-10           Kerry +2
ARG                        5/3-5/5          TIE
Research 2000       4/25-4/29      Kerry +2
Rasmussen            4/25               TIE
OSU                       3/19-4/7         Bush +2  
The Oregonian       3/4                 Kerry +5


These are the surveys.  All of them for Oregon.  True an OSU student led survey had Bush +2 back in April.  Rasmussen had Bush up by +1 once.  True an unknown group, Riley had Bush +5 in May one that The Volron described as "a bit of an 'oddly' constructed poll.  And every poll in June shows Kerry with a tight but not unconfortable lead.  Oregon may still be a toss up but even in polling section here it will soon tint pink.


It would be now but Rasmussen's Bush +1 is keeping it toss-up.

I agree that Oregon is a Lean Dem or Toss-Up state, but it seems like under Shira's model, it should go to the Republicans.  It HAS been trending Republican since 1988.

[stry_cat]

Anyone who calls VA for Kerry is an idiot. End of thread.

Well I have always admited that I am an idiot

Kerry has a shot here. Bush's main support is the rural low population area of the western party of the state.  Kerry has the high population areas of Richmond and some of the DC suburbs in NoVa.  If he can turn the people out while the rank and file Republicans remain unmotivated by Bush's out of control spending (not to mention the state GOP's out of control tax and spending), we could very well see a Kerry win in Virginia.  

You can't watch TV  without seeing a Kerry ad and I'd love to see another poll to see how effective the advertising has been.

Of course it's really too early to tell. It will be very dependent on who Kerry selects as VP.  If he goes Left he won't have a prayer, but if he picks a so-called moderate AND they campaign as moderates, then he has a good chance.

As for the prediction which started this thread... It's possible, but I think if Kerry wins VA he'll probably win some of the states like Mich, Iowa, Missouri, Wisc, and Minn.  He might not win them all, but I don't think Bush is going to win them all either.

[Shira]

Shira,

If the population of AZ increased by 20%, the voting population would increase by 13-15%.  Need to take into account things like minimum in-state residence status before being eligible to vote as well as registration deadlines (for those who move to the state - for example).

When the growth is 20%, each and every segment of the population would, at least theoretically, grow by 20%: voters, non-voters, children etc. In the case of Arizona I even think that the children's percentage among the new comers is less than the national number. So 20% is a good estimate of the Arizona's first time voters.

[Shira]

Yes, my map is based on trend and I acknowledge that my predictions on MI, VA, and AZ are stretched a little bit.
As to FL, I am much more confident.  The trend in FL is CONSISTENT: the GOP is loosing 0.5% every year in the last 12 years. This has nothing to do with gubernatorial election, but rather with the fast pace social changes of the population structure.