What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004
Ryan:
Well its over, the four big elections of the year are done and its a GOP advantage 3 to 1.
How will it affect the race for the White House in 2004?? I'm sure there are as many opinions as members here so let start hearing em.......... :D
Filuwaúrdjan:
Basically it confirms that a "multiple south" exists and that CA is not as Democrat as some Democrats(and Republicans for that matter) would like to belive.
Inmate Trump:
I'm not sure these elections have as much impact on 2004 as some people say. A lot can change between now and then. Who knows though; not me. I'm not a political scientist or anything, so I could be totally wrong. I do think it confirms that Bush will win most, if not all, of the south.
But if they *are* any indication of how 2004 will go, it's a sure good sign for Bush. Here's hoping Arnold can fix all of California's problems and be a huge improvement from Gray Davis--by Nov. 2004--so that he can possibly be able to deliver California's 55 electoral votes for Bush next year? Stranger things have happened...
Ryan:
My take is that the results confirm that the nation is still close to being as evenly divided between the parties as 2000 (with perhaps a slight GOP improvement.)
Do the gubernatorial victories make up a good predictor of Presidential elections? Of course not!! State elections are primarily decided on state issues.
To decide upon indicators to the Presidential race, we need to look at how the White House and mention of the White House influenced trends.
In Kentucky and Mississippi, GWB campaigned for his party nominees and they moved up in the polls after each visit.
Even more useful, democratic strategy of tying GOP candidates to Bush failed to have the desired effect.
In Kentucky it was a clear case of pro-Bush (Fletcher) and anti-Bush (Chandler). You all know who won. Furthur more in all four states, democrats tried to campaign on opposition to the President (not so much in Miss.) and all four Republican candidates endorsed the President's leadership though they connected themselves to him to varying extents. In no case did these hurt republican candidates (the La. defeat had other factors)
To sum up, there is no evidence that GWB has lost any of the support he had in 2000 in his "base" states and if California is an indication, he is not as weak as made out to be in left-tending states. (Otherwise Arnold would not have done so well after clearly stating that he supported the President and in fact recd. a muted endorsement from him.)
Demrepdan:
Mississippi and Kentucky will undoubtedly vote Republican in 2004. Lousiana has a 97% chance of voting Republican. So Kentucky, Mississippi, and Lousiana are pretty much set. But just because Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, won the Gubernatorial election, doesn't mean that California has ANY chance to vote for Bush. California only elects moderate Republicans as best. Which Arnold pretty much is. And this has mostly been seen more at just the state level. Bush will not win California in 2004.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page