What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 05:37:17 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
  What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004  (Read 20220 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,709
United Kingdom


« on: November 16, 2003, 04:08:29 PM »
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.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,709
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2003, 04:07:46 AM »
Has Cheney bugged the DNC?Huh
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,709
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2003, 04:46:58 AM »
I'm no expert on 1972... but I had always thought that bugging your opponent gave you an unfair advantage Wink
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,709
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2003, 12:02:06 PM »
1. All 4 states voted out the incumbent party
2. Race is still the no. 1 factor in Mississippi
3. The Dems seem to have recovered in Appalachia.
4. Poor whites propelled a Democrat to power in Lousiana
5. The electorate of California can be very stupid at times.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,709
United Kingdom


« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2003, 12:55:48 PM »
The one over-riding trend is anti-incumbency and voter anger, however this may have calmed down by November 2004.

Gubernatorial elections can be a bad indicator for nationwide elections, at least on a state level.

On a county level they can be both very misleading and very accurate of broader trends etc.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,709
United Kingdom


« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2003, 03:29:15 PM »
...But Chandler lost because of Patton.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,709
United Kingdom


« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2003, 06:06:37 AM »
The only thing that might have a(small) effect on the Presidential election is the recovery of the Dems in Appalachia(which won't have an effect on the outcome of the election).
Their poor showing in Appalachia in 2000 was forshadowed by there poor showing there in 1999.

However as very few people actually live in Appalachia the Dems improved showing there is only of interest to political junkies.

If then.
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 0.02 seconds with 13 queries.