PDA

View Full Version : Election 2004 Predictions


Pages : [1] 2

Jonathan Chance
01-16-2004, 07:50 AM
Right, I asked MEBuckner if this was OK and was told it was...

All through the varios fora I see wild-eyed predictions about the upcoming election and people asserting that they 'know' what will happen.

So I wanted a place to compile them, kick them around and see what happens.

The most obvious one to me is the bet between Bricker and myself. A hell of a long time ago Bricker and I bet on the upcoming Presidential Election. He backed GWB against the entire field. If anyone other than GWB is President after Jan 20 2005 I win.

And recently John Corrado opined that GWB would win in a landslide of Reaganesque proportions.

In addition, I've asked one of my pals who covers politics in Washington DC to occasionally make predictions about upcoming events during the election cycle. He's not comfortable predicting the outcome of November's election yet but will give me numbers for soon-to-be events. I'm not, however, free to share his name.

So, with Iowa only 3 days away here are his guesses for the outcome:

Dean: 27%
Gephardt: 25%
Edwards: 21%
Kerry: 18%

I think that Kerry/Edwards thing could flip-flop pretty easily, myself.

Brutus
01-16-2004, 08:36 AM
Are we doing Nov '04 predictions?

As a percentage of the popular vote:
GW Bush wins with 49%.
Kerry comes in second with 40%.
3rd parties take the balance.


Or just Iowa?

Gephardt wins with 28%. Strong union backing will help get people out to the caucuses. Cold weather will hurt the other candidates, but fear of Dean will rally the Dem base. Dean comes in 3rd, after Kerry. My magic ferret tells me that Kerry wins the nomination, but Deaniacs flock to third-parties, turning what could have been close into a solid Bush win.

I am so confident in my predictions, that I will bet Sharpton's credibility on it!

laigle
01-16-2004, 08:44 AM
Here goes:

After Bush becomes Pres of Mexico, the 2004 election will be split Sharpton 48%, Cheney 43%, Paris Hilton 10%. The disparity will be attributed to electronic voting and its constant overcounting.

So what odds do I get on that? Cause I only have five bucks to chip in.

Chance the Gardener
01-16-2004, 09:17 AM
I’m never comfortable making election predictions, yet I do it all the time. I called the last three presidential elections correctly, with my most off prediction being 2000, where I got six states wrong.

That said, I’m sure it’s too early to call the 2004 presidential election, much less the Democratic nomination. A while ago it looked to me like Dean had it locked up, but I don’t think so anymore. Kerry seems to be on pace to win Iowa on Monday, but at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if it goes to Gephardt, Dean or Edwards. If Dean wins Iowa, he’ll win New Hampshire and head to the South on February 3 in a comfortable position. If anyone else wins Iowa, Dean still might win New Hampshire, and the South will be a donnybrook between Dean and Clark.

Despite Kerry’s resurgent candidacy, I still think it looks like it’ll be down to either Dean or Clark. I think either Dean or Clark are likely to beat Bush in the general election, and while I’d be happy with either, I’m leaning toward Dean. Of course, much can change before then, and things could happen this summer that would seal the fortunes of either candidate, but I think the Democrats are better positioned. Bush is a weak candidate, and while he’s got the major benefits of incumbency and media sycophancy, he’s a juicy target this time.

I predict that it’ll be a close race with either Dean or Clark beating Bush. The Democratic candidate will take all the states that Gore took in 2000 and will pick up a few in the Rust Belt, the South and the Southwest. Democratic victory in the Electoral College by more than 300 votes, and the Democrats will win the popular vote for the fourth presidential election in a row.

Jonathan Chance
01-16-2004, 09:19 AM
I should also point out the tremendous bragging rights available to those who make predictions far out and are right.

I gained enormous prestige several years ago predicting that Jesse Ventura would win in Minnesota a LONG way out.

John Mace
01-16-2004, 09:25 AM
I think Kerry is going to take Iowa. Dean seems to have lost momentum and I can't see him doing well there after getting an endorsement from Reiner and Sheen. Too bad Clark is participating, because I'd like to see how he'd do.

Bush takes it in November, though. Not by a landslide, but we won't have another debacle like 2000. He'll get the popular vote and the electoral vote by a clean margin.

An Arky
01-16-2004, 09:28 AM
Dean takes the Dem nom, Edwards is his running mate. They lose to Bush in the general election 56% to 41%, with the rest going to loony bin candidates.

John Carter of Mars
01-16-2004, 09:39 AM
I should also point out the tremendous bragging rights available to those who make predictions far out and are right.

I predicted back in 1999 that the primary reason Shrub wanted to be President was so he could conquer Iraq. Does that get me points? So many posters here seem to be shocked and amazed that he did it, I just wonder.

As for 2004, I predict that the Democrats will once again fail to put forth a viable candidate, thus allowing Bush to win another term. Starting on Nov. 5th, the Dems won't look in their mirrors and blame themselves. No, they'll be on the SDMB posting about "Mindless Masses", "Bushistas", stolen elections and the like.

As Kurt said: "And so it goes."

Governor Quinn
01-16-2004, 10:01 AM
In the Senate, the Reps gain in Georgia and the Carolinas, while the Dems take Illinois and Alaska.

Bricker
01-16-2004, 10:03 AM
The most obvious one to me is the bet between Bricker and myself. A hell of a long time ago Bricker and I bet on the upcoming Presidential Election. He backed GWB against the entire field. If anyone other than GWB is President after Jan 20 2005 I win.

One caveat: if the Republican nominee is NOT Bush, then there's no bet, if I recall correctly. Not that I believe this has any chance of happening, but should some dire event remove Mr. Bush from the race, it's a push.

And one other note: I made that bet a long time ago, and I'm happy with it today. When Election 2004 is over, I intend to crow long and hard at the posters here who repeated ad nasuem in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 that there was no way Bush could win; it was, after all, such hyperbole that drove me to offer the bet, and I still kind of regret that the only taker was the level-headed and calm Jonathan Chance, and not one of the more rapidbly partisian hyperbolists (many of whom, in fairness, did offer entirely reasonable explanations for not participating in the wager).

- Rick

Bricker
01-16-2004, 10:08 AM
Er... "rapidbly" = rabidly.

And as long as I'm posting again, I predict Clark as the Democratic nominee. (I don't want that; I'd love to see Dean get it; Clark and Kerry are, however, real threats, especially as the only two with credentials that can take on a popular wartime president). Clark picks Edwards as a running mate.

Brutus
01-16-2004, 10:28 AM
One caveat: if the Republican nominee is NOT Bush, then there's no bet, if I recall correctly. Not that I believe this has any chance of happening, but should some dire event remove Mr. Bush from the race, it's a push.

And one other note: I made that bet a long time ago, and I'm happy with it today. When Election 2004 is over, I intend to crow long and hard at the posters here who repeated ad nasuem in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 that there was no way Bush could win; it was, after all, such hyperbole that drove me to offer the bet, and I still kind of regret that the only taker was the level-headed and calm Jonathan Chance, and not one of the more rapidbly partisian hyperbolists (many of whom, in fairness, did offer entirely reasonable explanations for not participating in the wager).

- Rick

What is the ante in this bet? You fellahs should make it interesting, such as if GW wins, Mssr.Chance makes a donation to the NRA or RNC (or something), and if a Dem wins, you donate to Greenpeace or the DNC (or again, something.)

Dev Null
01-16-2004, 10:32 AM
Bush/Cheney beat Dean/Clark by a tight enough margin to again call into question the results of the election.

Hours of network news watching will ensue. Partisan divisions will become deeper. You heard it here first, folks!

Hey, We Americans pay billions each year to support our government. We should demand some good entertainment value in return! The previous election was great theater, and the best politcal bang-for-the-buck in recent memory. It'll be hard to top that, but one can always hope for the best.

Best,
Dev

Jonathan Chance
01-16-2004, 10:42 AM
The bet was a really fine bottle of scotch. A fine gentlemen's wager.

I'm betting on my knowledge of politics. I wouldn't be surprised to lose but I think this thing is going to be closer than most people bet.

And Bricker? Clark/Edwards is exactly what my pal (with the predictions up there) just wrote me this morning. And he says it could be a fearsome campaign if that happens.

Bricker
01-16-2004, 10:42 AM
What is the ante in this bet? You fellahs should make it interesting, such as if GW wins, Mssr.Chance makes a donation to the NRA or RNC (or something), and if a Dem wins, you donate to Greenpeace or the DNC (or again, something.)

Bottle of single-malt scotch, winner's choice as to brand, as long as it's reasonable, and I seem to recall we mentioned "reasonable" hovering around the not-to-exceed $90 range.

Quartz
01-16-2004, 10:51 AM
Are you also assuming Cheney is Bush's running-mate? After all, he does have a bad heart. And a new running-mate could mean a new skeleton in the closet.

Jonathan Chance
01-16-2004, 10:58 AM
What is the ante in this bet? You fellahs should make it interesting, such as if GW wins, Mssr.Chance makes a donation to the NRA or RNC (or something), and if a Dem wins, you donate to Greenpeace or the DNC (or again, something.)

And just to dodge the stereotypes I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. I think all y'all arguing about it are fools.

I just bet how the landscape feels.

Brutus
01-16-2004, 11:08 AM
And just to dodge the stereotypes I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. I think all y'all arguing about it are fools.

I just bet how the landscape feels.

Fair enough. I just assumed you and Bricker were Dems/Repubs, but it looks like you are just eager to get a chance at some fine scotch. ;)

Bricker
01-16-2004, 11:25 AM
And Bricker? Clark/Edwards is exactly what my pal (with the predictions up there) just wrote me this morning. And he says it could be a fearsome campaign if that happens.

I agree that the Clark/Edwards combination is the most fearsome (from my point of view) combination of likelihood to happen and eventual victory. That's a convoluted sentence; what I mean is that there's a scale: at one end is Al Sharpton, who has no realistic chance of getting the nomination, and would be a dream if he did, because he has no realistic chance of beating Bush.

Lieberman, a moderate Democrat, would be a challenge for Bush, but hasn't really energized his own party. I'd hate to see him as the Democratic nominee, but I don't think it's realistic because he's too moderate (too far right, that is) for the activists in the Democratic party whose voices matter most during the primaries.

Clark scares me. As a former four-star general, he's relatively immune to one of the big challenges facing the Democrats this time through: doves won't fare as well as hawks in the general elections. Reading this board, you'd get the idea that Bush, Iraq, and the military in general were held in universal disdain in this country; the truth is that polls still show the heartland in favor of the President and the war. Clark has got the background to criticize specific military strategic actions without opening himself up to subtle digs at his patriotism. (Kerry, too, I might add).

What the partisans (both here on the SDMB and in the Democratic party wings) don't seem to understand is how they are disconnected from mainstream America on this topic. Stoid has a plaintive thread going now, wondering how or why America still hasn't erupted in righteous anger over the gross injustice that was the Iraq war. It reminds me of an oft-quoted line from a 1972-era left-winger that was amazed at Nixon's landslide victory because "Nobody I know voted for him..."

Dean is a symptom of that disconnect, and believe me when I say I'm thrilled to see it. If Clark has enough outrage to spark hope in the left wing of the Demoractic party and capture the nomination, he may well have enough centrist pull to be a real threat to Bush.

I hope I'm wrong on my Clark/Edwards prediction, because I like scotch. :)

- Rick

Mehitabel
01-16-2004, 11:43 AM
Moderate Dem here. This is very silly since another gobsmacking event like 9/11 (of its impact, if not its type exactly) or the death/medical resignation of Cheney is probable enough so that we'll be looking at a totally different landscape at election time. But I like silly.

IF things continue with the same trends we're having right now, I predict Kerry/Edwards vs. Bush, with Bush winning by less than 5% but clearly winning this time.

This post and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks ;)

BobLibDem
01-16-2004, 12:14 PM
The standard of blowouts in recent years has been Michael Dukakis. Yet Dukakis pulled 45.6% of the vote nationwide. I believe Dean, Kerry, Clark, and Edwards are all capable of beating Dukakis' total by more than 4.4%. I'll be the first on the block to salute President Edwards.

Merijeek
01-16-2004, 12:55 PM
"The President's head was represented by a small yellow helium balloon". - The NY Observer, 12/29/04

I gotta say, if the date on that quote is accurate, we've got to discuss some lottery numbers.

Anyways, if it's Dean vs. Bush, Dean gets crushed, but not in a Reaganesque way. Nothing that big...but there will be no doubt that Bush was the clear winner.

I do think that Kerry, Edwards, or Clark will have a good shot against Bush, especially if Chaney is still the veep. Those will be close, and as Bricker said, the thought Clark/Edwards (or my preferred Kerry/Edwards) should worry the Pubs.

Personally, every poll result that shows Dean slipping against the other Dems gives me a little more hope.

-Joe, hoping for a change

John Corrado
01-16-2004, 12:57 PM
I stand by my earlier prediction: George Bush wins with at least 56% of the popular vote.

As for who he wins against- I'll bet that Gephardt wins Iowa by less than 3%, with Dean a close second, Edwards third, and Kerry trailing in fourth; Dean wins New Hampshire by 8% over Clark, with Edwards, Kerry, and then Gephardt.

The race continues to be a "who can beat Dean", but the answer is no one- Clark's campaign is still a complete mess, doing poorly in the states he focuses on but good enough generally to stay in the race- he also makes a few large gaffes that, combined with a few public flip-flops, turn him into an also-ran halfway through. Edwards wins a few southern primaries but nothing outside of it. With no wins or even good performances, Kerry drops out quickly; and as it's no big surprise that he won Iowa, Gephardt is unable to make anything of it, and fades into obscurity. In the end, Dean takes enough delegates to lock it in the last month of primaries.

Dean selects Max Cleland as his VP candidate; nevertheless, Bush rides a wave of increasing prosperity and satisfaction with the Iraq war into a second term.

pantom
01-16-2004, 01:46 PM
Hmm. So, I've gotta make a prediction that's accurate but distinctive enough to win me a bottle of good scotch. This is going to be difficult, but fun.
I have an absolutely irrational love of good scotch, so I'm going to give this some time to, um, ferment in my brain. Back tonight with the real deal on what's going down this year. That bottle will make the next four years a little easier to take, after all.

rjung
01-16-2004, 03:46 PM
Going for the wild-n-wacky prediction here...

The night before the election, George W. Bush is trailing the Democratic candidate by 10%-15% percentage points. While the press is wringing their hands in worry, George just smiles and says "let's wait for people to vote before we count our chickens," or something equally folksy and malappropros.

24 hours later, the election results are in, and George W. Bush handily wins re-election, 75%-25%. Despite skepticism from pundits across the nation, Bush urges everyone to put the election behind them, and throws out some stuff about possible terrorists in Venezuela.

The next morning, Diebold puts out a press release declaring their nationwide SecuriVote(tm) electronic voting system to be an absolute success, and gently chides the critics who had wanted a paper trail to audit the election. This item is buried on page 38 of all the major newspapers, and is promptly ignored by all Americans.

:eek: ;) :D

Bricker
01-16-2004, 04:37 PM
Going for the wild-n-wacky prediction here...


Yes. Yes, you are.

Jonathan Chance
01-16-2004, 08:15 PM
And just to make clear...

So far the only people with anything riding on this is Bricker and Myself.

Any of YOU people want some sweet action set it up yourselves!

Come Tuesday I will tally up who was right and who was wrong about Iowa! Then we're on to New Hampshire!

kevja
01-16-2004, 08:18 PM
I hope not, but...

On the news last night, in a Field Poll (pretty reliable) Bush beats every Democrat now running by at least 8-10 points in California. The talking heads on the broadcast agreed that if Bush were to win California, that could signal a 45 state win for Bush.

My prediction. And I'd love to be wrong.

Popular -- 52% Bush, 46% Democrat, 2% others.
Electoral -- Bush 40+ States. All the ones he carried in 2000, plus the ones around the Great Lakes, and maybe California.

In this town it will be 75% Democrat, 15% Bush, 10% others. Bush came in third here in 2000. We've got it right. Or should I say left. Hmm.

kevja
01-16-2004, 08:21 PM
Looks like the new format doesn't list our location anymore. That would be San Francisco, where Bush will get 15% of the vote.

olanv
01-16-2004, 08:29 PM
Going for the wild-n-wacky prediction here...

The night before the election, George W. Bush is trailing the Democratic candidate by 10%-15% percentage points. While the press is wringing their hands in worry, George just smiles and says "let's wait for people to vote before we count our chickens," or something equally folksy and malappropros.

24 hours later, the election results are in, and George W. Bush handily wins re-election, 75%-25%. Despite skepticism from pundits across the nation, Bush urges everyone to put the election behind them, and throws out some stuff about possible terrorists in Venezuela.

The next morning, Diebold puts out a press release declaring their nationwide SecuriVote(tm) electronic voting system to be an absolute success, and gently chides the critics who had wanted a paper trail to audit the election. This item is buried on page 38 of all the major newspapers, and is promptly ignored by all Americans.

:eek: ;) :D

What do you think the chances are that if this actually happens the political banter will not change one iota? All the straight arrowed "dem, rep, ind, lib" types won't even conceieve of budging or consider that something might actually be strange about this?

pantom
01-16-2004, 09:16 PM
Well shoot, if all I got is ego riding on this, that's easy:

-Dean takes Iowa decisively, ditto NH, 'cause he's got the organization, and history shows organization wins out.
-BUT, Clark does well enough in NH to make it a race going into the South, where Edwards makes it a drama. Some time during or shortly after the Southern tier, Kerry and Lieberman pull out. Clark may or may not depending if he wins anything.
-Last piece is Edwards vs Dean and possibly Clark. My best guess is a Dean/Edwards ticket.
-Come the election, as we get closer to the middle of October and it's still close enough to make Bush sweat, he calls in his NSC and tells 'em to get OBL or get out. OBL is captured right around Halloween, in Pakistan, with Musharraf displaying him for all to see. Bush wins with at least 55% of the vote and most of the states.

Actually, the more interesting question to me is the Congress. If Governor Quinn is around, I'd like to ask him to comment on just what the electoral math is and whether it's as bad as I've been hearing for the Dems.

rjung
01-17-2004, 04:02 AM
To Bricker: hey, I said it was wild-n-wacky. ;) I refuse to make a serious prediction this early in the game.

What do you think the chances are that if this actually happens the political banter will not change one iota? All the straight arrowed "dem, rep, ind, lib" types won't even conceieve of budging or consider that something might actually be strange about this?
If my insanely loopy scenario actually happens, any attempts to investigate the matter further will be waved away by the Usual Conservative Suspects(tm) as "nitpicking" from "sore losers" and "traitors," and told to "get over it."

Pardon me for actually being concerned about the election process...

Brutus
01-17-2004, 07:24 AM
To Bricker: hey, I said it was wild-n-wacky. ;) I refuse to make a serious prediction this early in the game.


If my insanely loopy scenario actually happens, any attempts to investigate the matter further will be waved away by the Usual Conservative Suspects(tm) as "nitpicking" from "sore losers" and "traitors," and told to "get over it."

Pardon me for actually being concerned about the election process...

If your insanely loopy scenario actually happens, I don't think us Usual Conservative Suspects will need to worry about you nitpicking traitorous sore losers anymore... ;)

sibyl
01-17-2004, 05:20 PM
Heres my prediction.

The offensive the current administration is displaying of justifying the war and putting any skeletons firmly in the closet long before election time continues. Around May, Osama Bin Ladin is caught or killed in the hills of Afghanistan and the Hussein trials begin to show up in the news. All of these as well as the transfer of power in Iraq are in the news over the summer. Insurgence is pretty much gone but there is still some hostility among the various political factions in Iraq that cause some problems in the transition period, but nothing major. People forget about early 2003, ancient history. North Korea, Iran, and Syria's progress in cancelling nuclear weapons programs gets publicity and is painted as winning the war on terrorism. The war is pretty much accepted as a success.

Dean or Clark are candidates, and they make occasional quips when something supporting their views of the war as unnecessary shows up, but they are forced by public opinion to get off the war angle and focus more on the economy and social programs.

Dean shows himeself to be weak on the economy. He supports repealing the tax cuts completely, spending a lot of money on government programs, etc. He shoots himself in the foot on the economy and is left with pure liberal rhetoric by November and loses in a landslide 58% to 33% loss.

Clark (I'll echo the Edwards as running-mate thing) however, manages to stay pretty strong on the economy. He supports increasing the taxes on the rich in general only, improving his support with the lower and middle class, and his support among the rich is generally irrelevant as they support Bush anyway. His social programs are generally pretty progressive and get support and the decreased focus on the war actually helps him because the opposition is eager to use various incidents in his military history against him. The election ends up 47% Bush, 45% Clark and Bush wins again.

:cool:

XT
01-17-2004, 05:45 PM
Well, getting out my crystal ball, I see Dean winning the nomination. Maybe with Edwards as his running mate.

My prediction if this is the case is:

Bush: 49%
Dean: 45%
rest of the vote going to 3rd party candidates.

Bush wins by a comfortable margin (gods help us).

-XT

syncrolecyne
01-17-2004, 05:55 PM
I am going to go out on a limb and forecast that the Republicans will nominate George W. Bush.

Otherwise I'll be cautious because I've been saying for weeks that John Kerry is a has-been, toast, finished, and caput; and should just be content to live off his wife's steak sauce empire. Now he seems to be very much back in the game.

I think only Clark and Kerry can give Bush a real stiff challenge. Also I think it will be so close that third party voting will be critical. Bush can probably count on 47-48% and Kerry or Clark 46-47% or so. How these votes fall in the electoral map will be key. As Al Gore had Ralph Nader to contend with on his left, this time it may be George W. Bush with a third party headache. Here's why; his latest immigration proposal, as well as his generous spending in some areas has royally pissed off some paleo-conservatives (of the Pat Buchanan variety). If Pat or someone else like him mounts a serious "Reform Party" or "Constitution Party" candidacy (not a half-assed one like in 2000), it may shave off 0.5-1% from Bush's vote and actually tip it to a Democrat.

Also, most times, the vice president is not chosen out of the primary candidates (Dick Cheney, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, Mondale, Agnew, and so on). Other than Edwards, I don't think anyone in this field would accept a VP slot, even Clark.

My possibilites
John Edwards (if not the nominee)
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (on his side, wide range or administrative, legislative, and foreign policy experience, and being fluent in Spanish and half-Hispanic - could easily trump Karl Rove's Hispanic outreach strategy: but also involved in the Los Alamos Energy Department mess)
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
Louisiana Senator John Breaux (perhaps best choice, but probably not willing to accept)
New York's own Hillary Clinton (if things look really desparate!)

milroyj
01-17-2004, 06:50 PM
Starting on Nov. 5th, the Dems won't look in their mirrors and blame themselves. No, they'll be on the SDMB posting about "Mindless Masses", "Bushistas", stolen elections and the like.

This particular prediction is a metaphysical certitude.

SteveEisenberg
01-17-2004, 07:21 PM
I predicted back in 1999 that the primary reason Shrub wanted to be President was so he could conquer Iraq. Does that get me points?

I guess. Now, personally, although a registered Republican, I voted for Gore because I thought he was more hawkish, what with candidate Bush's no-nationbuilding rhetoric, his efforts to gather the Arab-American vote, and the prospect of his making Colin Powell his secretary of state.

As for the 1999 prediction, the deeper question is whether the personality of an individual leader, especially an elected one, is at all important in whether a nation goes to war -- I would rather bet on wars being caused by a slew of economic, political, social, and ideological factors. Wrong?

As for the election this year, I would be glad to predict if I knew anything about how to predict. Whomever has the best handlers and then sticks to focus-group selected themes obviously has a big advantage. Bush would also seem to have an advantage in being a reasonably popular wartime President. What's more important in getting elected -- how the candidate campaigns, or what he brings to the table?

OK, I'll make one stick-out-the-neck prediction. Hilliary Clinton will be the next President of the United States, probably taking office in 2009.

furt
01-18-2004, 01:13 AM
Gephardt is done after Iowa. He gets under 25% and finishes third or fourth. He withdraws and endorses Edwards, who does not win, but is the better-than-expected "winning loser" in Iowa.

After NH, the race is down to Dean the leftist vs. Edwards the moderate. Dean wins the nom (Clark endorses), picks a Senator not in the race as his veep, and actually does better than some might think in the general election, taking 46% to W's 49%. Nevertheless, W is back in office in 2004.

minty green
01-18-2004, 01:35 AM
I have no prediction, as predicting the outcomes of the Democratic primaries, the random weirdness of currrent events, and the general election amounts to a complete fool's errand.

That said, I give Bush a 3:2 edge over the Democratic field. I'd call it a dead-even horse race if Clark wins the nomination, a 3%-4% advantage to Bushif it's Edwards or Kerry, and a minimum of 10 points if the Dems decide they really don't care about the country or the world by nominating Dean.

adaher
01-18-2004, 05:26 AM
I pick Edwards to win Iowa, place 3rd in NH, and win SC, making him the front runner and allowing him to eek out the nomination. Clark's non-participation in Iowa and continued Dean-like gaffes is going to hurt him.

Edwards will start off way behind Bush in the polls, but an awesome performance in the convention will vault him into the lead, and he will only expand it in the debates. He will also be helped by choosing Evan Bayh as his running mate, a VP from the crucial industrial Midwest.

Edwards wins in November with 53% of the vote to Bush's 46%. Republicans make big gains in the House and Senate. Edwards will smile and make optimistic speeches. Life is good.

quixotic78
01-18-2004, 06:00 AM
Well, first off, I'd like to say that the thought of Edwards as VP is... intriguing. Imagine putting charismatic, affable, and competent Edwards next to surly, churlish, and competent-but-unquestionably-evil Cheney. That'd be fun to watch.

Anyways, here's I go...

Dean wins Iowa, Kerry second, Edwards third, Gephardt fourth. Gephardt drops out but never endorses anyone during the campaign.

Dean wins New Hampshire, Kerry places second, Clark third, Edwards a distant fourth. Clark's campaign is all but dead, but he doesn't drop out.

Edwards picks up momentum in the South and generates a lot of excitement, but his campaign doesn't have the organizational skills to keep it going for long. Kerry and Clark end up withering and dying, and Dean ends up winning the nomination by virtue of not losing. Dean chooses someone Southern and probably not a candidate (although *maaaaybe* Edwards) for his Veep.

Bush crafts events in the late summer to his liking -- hell, he can declare Iraq a success at any point he wants, even if it's bullshit, and most people will lap it up because they want to. Despite valid attacks on Bush -- shit like "This guy is a uniter??" and "Didn't you say you wouldn't build any nations last time you did this?" -- Rove continues to wrap Bush in the flag. Hell, the economy might even make a slight bump, which will be heralded as a new boom: "We created 628 jobs this quarter!"

Bottom line: Bush wins with almost every state going the same way it did last time.

Milum
01-18-2004, 04:36 PM
My dime, your donut...

Bush wins 59 % to 49% over Hillary Rodam Clinton in November. The Democratic whimps in contention whine and collapse when Hillary spreads her political legs at the Democratic Convention. What a bitch.

Bush marches in while the integrity of our borders shuffles off to Mexico.
:smack:

Seven
01-19-2004, 03:41 AM
I should also point out the tremendous bragging rights available to those who make predictions far out and are right.

Bush wins just by the hairs on his chinny-chin-chin. While at the reception speech the first lady bumps into Bush casuing his face to fall off revealing a small control center ala Men in Black being driven by the amputated nose of Michael Jackson. It is decided the nose couldn't hold office because he ran not as itself but as Bush. A re-election is held and the nose wins again, this time by a landslide.

Jonathan Chance
01-20-2004, 07:53 AM
OK, with Iowa behind us let's see how we're doing...

My pal (the reporter) was wrong wrong wrong.

Brutus predicted a Gephardt win...wrong.

John Mace is our first winner. He predicted a Kerry win in Iowa. Well done!

pantom predicted a Dean win in Iowa...wrong.

Furt predicted that Gephardt would be done after Iowa...another winner! He also predicted a 'strong but not first' showing for Edwards. Well done!

adaher predicted an Edwards win...wrong.

quixotic78 predicted a Dean win...wrong.

So our winners so far are John Mace and furt! Well done folks!

Now our next question:

New Hampshire. We had Fightin' Joe Lieberman and Wes Clark to the mix. How will they all fair? Will Gephardt even show? If not who will he endorse?

So pick 'em, folks! Pick 'em! I'll post my pal's predictions when he crawls out of his hole this morning.

Marley23
01-20-2004, 08:23 AM
Gephardt isn't going to New Hampshire. He flew home today instead of going there. He'll probably officially drop out today, he's quitting in any case. If he gives an endorsement, I'd imagine it'll be for Kerry, who's of the party (as opposed to outsider Dean).

I'm gonna regret posting a prediction this early, but I think New Hampshire will go Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Dean.

Jonathan Chance
01-20-2004, 08:26 AM
And my reporter (and disgraced) pal will only predict a Clark win in New Hampshire.

That should make the following month interesting, shouldn't it?

furt
01-20-2004, 08:55 AM
After hearing Dean's speech last night (audio on drudge), I wish I could withdraw my prediction of him getting the nod. The man is utterly batshit insane. Mind you, I find that entertaining, but he will never be a vaible national candidate.

Dean will stay in for a while, but the "unelectable" tag is on for good. Kerry's stiffness is too Gore-like. Edwards will the demo nomination.

Shodan
01-20-2004, 09:23 AM
I think Kerry is going to take Iowa. Dean seems to have lost momentum and I can't see him doing well there after getting an endorsement from Reiner and Sheen. Damn, you're good. :)

My predictions for New Hampshire is that Dean will win, Clark second, Kerry third. The media will cover it as a major comeback. The primaries will continue without a clear front-runner for some months still.

For the general election, Bush will win by at least 5% of the popular vote, and a very large margin in the Electoral College.

Democrats will file a lawsuit over something or other in the election. When it is thrown out, they will claim that it invalidates the election, and refer to Bush as "the President who never won an election". The economy will continue to recover, and Democrats will complain that it is bypassing those at the bottom. The unemployment rate will drop, and Democrats will claim that they are mostly "dead-end" entry level jobs that don't earn enough to support a family, or high-demand jobs that poor people cannot aspire to.

The Usual Suspects on the SDMB will continue to post paranoid accusations of secret plots to steal the elections. Stoid will start a long thread the day after the election claiming that the world is coming to an end and that the Republicans will grind up poor people for dog food . And I will post in every available thread saying, essentially, "Neener neener neener!" in a completely class-free, annoyingly superior whine.

And I estimate Cheney's chances of stepping down at 40%. If he does, Condi Rice will replace him, and be elected in 2008. (IhopeIhopeIhope...)

Regards,
Shodan

Bricker
01-20-2004, 09:24 AM
The Democrats are not idiots.

Despite the disproportionate influence of the lefter-leaning party activists during primaries, it seems clear now that Dean isn't going to manage anything this time around. I'm disappointed, because as I hinted before, I thought Dean was a sure loss in November. The party sees that as well.

I wish it were otherwise, because Kerry and Clark are both formidable candidates against an incumbent president running on a war record.

It will be interesting to see how they approach each other. Clark's message seems to be along the lines of, "Hey, Kerry was a junior officer - a hero junior officer, and I respect that heroism, but a junior officer nonetheless. I was a four-star."

- Rick

plnnr
01-20-2004, 10:33 AM
Kerry/Breaux will be the Dems ticket

Jonathan Chance
01-20-2004, 11:37 AM
OK, plnnr.

You're on record now!

Marley23
01-20-2004, 12:14 PM
It will be interesting to see how they approach each other. Clark's message seems to be along the lines of, "Hey, Kerry was a junior officer - a hero junior officer, and I respect that heroism, but a junior officer nonetheless. I was a four-star."
If you were doing a prediction, Bricker, your foresight is outstanding - that's almost EXACTLY what Clark said. From the New York Times:

"I've negotiated peace agreements," he said. "I've led a major alliance in war. It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that, and I respect him for that. He's been a good senator. But I've had the military leadership at the top as well as at the bottom."

RTFirefly
01-20-2004, 12:30 PM
For November, I want points, or odds, either one. Bush is quite reasonably the favorite. In an even-odds bet, I'd put my money on Bush in a heartbeat. But at 3-2 odds in Bush's favor, I'd bet on the Democrat.

Hey John Corrado, you say Bush will get at least 56% of the vote. I say he won't. Care for a small wager?

I don't know who the Dem nominee will be, other than that the field has been narrowed to Kerry, Edwards, and Clark. I think whichever of them ultimately wins the nomination can beat Bush, which is not to say he will beat Bush.

I'll pick Kerry to win NH.

Left Hand of Dorkness
01-20-2004, 12:53 PM
If we're getting points for far-out predictions, I want to reiterate my early call that Edwards was gonna take the nomination, and that the general election would depend on voter turnout, as I said more than a year ago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=156194&highlight=Edwards).

Daniel

Knorf
01-20-2004, 12:55 PM
The winning Dem. ticket will be Clark (Edwards as vp?), with a long shot to Dean (Clark as VP? I know he said no way to a VP spot, but I think this would be a formidable ticket.)

People who think Dean has no chance to beat Bush are wrong, wrong, wrong. Bush is WAY more vulnerable than almost anybody is saying at the moment. He seems to be doing okayish for the moment, but November is a long way away, and he's still riding on incumbency and the general ignorance of the public regarding the dems.

[prediction mode]
So, as election days looms, polls show Bush sliding further and further behind as more and more Americans grow tired of his handouts to the wealthiest and of his consistent pattern of deceit, Orwellian double-speak, and general smarminess.

Just before November, Bush suspends free elections justified by fabricating a national emergency, disbands the SCOTUS, and establishes martial law to keep the opposition in line. Republicans cheer.

American Democracy as we have known it will be over.
[/prediction mode]

Knorf
01-20-2004, 12:57 PM
The winning Dem. ticket will be Clark (Edwards as vp?), with a long shot to Dean (Clark as VP? I know he said no way to a VP spot, but I think this would be a formidable ticket.)

People who think Dean has no chance to beat Bush are wrong, wrong, wrong. Bush is WAY more vulnerable than almost anybody is saying at the moment. He seems to be doing okayish for the moment, but November is a long way away, and he's still riding on incumbency and the general ignorance of the public regarding the dems.

[prediction mode]
So, as election days looms, polls show Bush sliding further and further behind as more and more Americans grow tired of his handouts to the wealthiest and of his consistent pattern of deceit, Orwellian double-speak, and general smarminess.

Just before November, Bush suspends free elections (justified by fabricating a national emergency), disbands the SCOTUS, and establishes martial law to keep the opposition in line. Republicans cheer.

American Democracy as we have known it will be over.
[/prediction mode]

RTFirefly
01-20-2004, 01:16 PM
I find kwildcat's analysis (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4477324&postcount=38) quite insightful:
If I were a political strategist, I would find all this very interesting from a strategic perspective, and frankly playing out very well thus far for the Democratic party.

-raving northeast liberal whips the party into a frenzy, boosting interest, turnout, and grassroots fundraising. The contest is successfully defined most importantly as a way to get rid of GWB.
-raving northeast liberal goes too far, prompting questions of electability. The party base, though, is already energized by the drama of stark raving lunacy, attack ads, wacky debate antics, etc. High voter turnout during the primaries and the general election is seemingly assured.
-plodding centrist candidates, sensing opportunity, decide to engage in good old fashioned mudslinging at the raving liberal. They are so out of date they do not realize that it damages them just as much as their target.
-his ego stung by the attacks, raving northeast liberal whines and mudslings back, forgetting that it was anything but old-fashioned political tactics that made him the front runner. In the process, he looks like an ass.
-the less strident, more visionary, more progressive candidates at last become the hot topic of coverage. Having benefitted from the mobilization of the electorate by the catfight among the competition, people are now primed to focus on message over fist-shaking.
He picks Kerry and Clark to finish 1-2 in NH, with Edwards winning the nomination and the election.

RTFirefly
01-20-2004, 02:05 PM
My predictions for New Hampshire is that Dean will win, Clark second, Kerry third. Interested in a wager? You say Dean, I say Kerry. Anyone else, we call it a wash. A bottle of champagne under $50, perhaps?
For the general election, Bush will win by at least 5% of the popular vote, and a very large margin in the Electoral College. Define 'a very large margin', and we might have a wagering opportunity here, as well. Just take into account the magnifying tendencies of the EC: a candidate that wins 60% of the popular vote is likely to win 90-99% of the electoral vote, for instance. So I'm assuming you mean a larger margin than one would expect from a 5% popular margin, based on past elections. (In 1992, Clinton won by just over 5% popular, and by 202 electoral votes; the 1988 and 1952 elections were decided by about 7.5% popular, and by margins of 315 and 353 electoral votes.)
Democrats will file a lawsuit over something or other in the election. When it is thrown out, they will claim that it invalidates the election, and refer to Bush as "the President who never won an election". If Bush wins in the manner you predict, this won't happen. Saying it will is just throwing needless partisanship into an otherwise respectable post.
The economy will continue to recover, and Democrats will complain that it is bypassing those at the bottom. If corporations are doing a lot better, but it isn't making a difference in people's paychecks, that's a pretty reasonable thing to complain about.
The unemployment rate will drop, and Democrats will claim that they are mostly "dead-end" entry level jobs that don't earn enough to support a family, or high-demand jobs that poor people cannot aspire to. Hey, the unemployment rate did just drop, and without even creating any new jobs! A lot of people simply gave up looking for work.
And I estimate Cheney's chances of stepping down at 40%. If he does, Condi Rice will replace him, and be elected in 2008. (IhopeIhopeIhope...) Won't happen, absent a genuinely incapacitating health event. And if that happens, Dubya's veep will be someone who isn't likely to use it as a springboard for 2008.

Why?

Jeb.

I've said this a number of times before. I'll put my wallet where my mouth is on this.

Stoid
01-20-2004, 02:59 PM
I predicted back in 1999 that the primary reason Shrub wanted to be President was so he could conquer Iraq. Does that get me points? So many posters here seem to be shocked and amazed that he did it, I just wonder.

I continue to be amazed that anyone is amazed. I knew that, why does everyone else seem to think it only came up after 9/11?

Evil Captor
01-20-2004, 04:28 PM
I'm projecting the order in New Hampshire will go:

Clark, Dean, Kerry and Lieberman. Lieberman's been working it in Iowa, but I don't think he has a message that will energize Dems.

I think the Iowa caucuses show that the Dems HAVE been energized by Dean's candidacy though they didn't wind up supporting Dean himself. I think if Dean stays in the race it'll energize the party so much that it will carry the Dems to victory.

Even if not, if the recovery continues to be jobless and Iraq continues to be a quagmire in which we sacrifice the lives of our soldiers, and I think they both will, any Dem will beat Bush. Even Lieberman.

I'm betting that Dean wins it all after people realize that Clark's platform is Republican-lite v.2 (Lieberman being v. 1) and the Dem constituency rejects it and Clark along with it.

Hello, President Dean!

Knorf
01-20-2004, 06:49 PM
Lieberman's been working it in Iowa, but I don't think he has a message that will energize Dems.

What? You're not energized by "I don't want there to be an inch of difference between me and the president on this war"?

:p

aahala
01-20-2004, 08:51 PM
The last NH polls I saw put Dean at 23-28%, Clark 15-20%, and Kerry somewhere in between. It's a big if, but if Clark can get in the upper teens and Dean in the present range, we could have one interesting race for several weeks or months. There weren't that many undecideds there and a primary in NH is a different thing than a caucus in Iowa. Expections have also changed.

Both Johns, particularly Kerry, are short of money. If Dean or Clark, or even if both are not knocked out because of NH, it may be difficult for Kerry to finance the next weeks 7- state contest.

Al Sharpton might want Dean to remain for the SC contest, as he is a good patsy for the race card, to drive up Sharpton's showing there among Black voters. So don't be surprised if the reverend throws a stink bomb into the NH contest in the next few days, to reshuttle deck.

Marley23
01-20-2004, 11:15 PM
I'm projecting the order in New Hampshire will go:

Clark, Dean, Kerry and Lieberman. Lieberman's been working it in Iowa, but I don't think he has a message that will energize Dems.
You forgot Edwards, Captor. The poll I saw tonight had him even with Lieberman, but it was a three-day poll stretching back to before the caucuses. I expect that'll give him the momentum to move ahead of Lieberman. It also showed Dean at 25%, Kerry at 23, Clark at 16, and Edwards/Lieberman at 7% each. Same goes for Kerry - I think the Iowa momentum will push him ahead of Dean, and 2% is well within the margin of error anyway.

Marley23
01-21-2004, 01:38 AM
More recent NH poll data (http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0700&id=2004012022040002299502).

In the polls taken after Iowa, Kerry does indeed have a 2% ege on Dean. And the number of undecided voters appears to have increased markedly.

codzilla
01-21-2004, 02:37 AM
It is simply foolish to predict NH, but I'm not proud. Here goes:

1) Kerry 2) Clark 3) Edwards 4) Dean

Clark and Edwards could flop.

It brings me great sorrow to predict Kerry winning because I have been going to the Dean Meatup's since last August, but I still think he is far too hysterical to be seen as a viable candidate.

People don’t give these candidates enough credit. I think Bush is in a very poor position and could be beat on his tax policies alone by any of these four candidates. Personally I think the most likely pairing at this point is Kerry-Edwards, which Bush wouldn’t stand a chance against.

RTFirefly
01-21-2004, 06:02 AM
Here's a direct link, so you don't have to rely on AOHell:

http://www.zogby.com/

I expect they'll be updating the NH tracking poll daily in that space.

E-Sabbath
01-21-2004, 06:56 AM
Edwards is too young and inexperienced to be president. However, he'd be a good choice to run as VP and to run seriously for president _next_ election.

He's also the other Southern Strategy. Clark's just doing this as a lark, essentially, he's got no other goals.

I say Edwards as VP for the Dems, Clark has no _reason_ to suffer for four years if he wins.

And I'm saying Kerry or Dean will be the choice for President. Clark's way the heck too vunerable to Bush.

Dean _can_ turn it around, unless he screws up again.

Evil Captor
01-21-2004, 07:27 AM
What? You're not energized by "I don't want there to be an inch of difference between me and the president on this war"?

:p

yes, and I'm also not energized by, "I think censorship is swell" and "Let's make religion a centerpiece of all our political discussions."

Lieberman is the de-energizer bunny of Democratic politics.

Shodan
01-21-2004, 10:34 AM
Darn this new format, it keeps crashing when I am trying to waste money.


My predictions for New Hampshire is that Dean will win, Clark second, Kerry third.
Interested in a wager? You say Dean, I say Kerry. Anyone else, we call it a wash. A bottle of champagne under $50, perhaps? I don't drink champagne, but I do drink champagne brandy. If you are serious about this, a bottle of Remy Martin, perhaps? Still under $50.

Let me know, in this thread if possible.

I look forward to drinking a toast to your health, and to a Bush-Dean matchup in the fall. :D

Regards,
Shodan

RTFirefly
01-21-2004, 10:47 AM
Darn this new format, it keeps crashing when I am trying to waste money.

Interested in a wager? You say Dean, I say Kerry. Anyone else, we call it a wash. A bottle of champagne under $50, perhaps?

I don't drink champagne, but I do drink champagne brandy. If you are serious about this, a bottle of Remy Martin, perhaps? Still under $50.

Let me know, in this thread if possible.

I look forward to drinking a toast to your health, and to a Bush-Dean matchup in the fall. :D

Regards,
ShodanYou're on. An under-$50 bottle of champagne v. an under-$50 bottle of champagne brandy, of the winner's choice within those parameters. May the best prognosticator win!

Spoke
01-21-2004, 10:55 AM
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]Edwards is too young and inexperienced to be president. [QUOTE]

Huh?

Edwards is 51 years old. (He just looks younger.) He is 5 years older than Clinton was in 1992.

As for experience, he is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, meaning he has more foreign policy experience than either Clinton or Bush had when elected.

Yours is the standard rap on Edwards, but I believe it is mostly based on his appearance.

Spoke
01-21-2004, 11:18 AM
My predictions:

Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Clark and Sharpton will be the last 5 candidates. (Sharpton staying in just to guarantee a speaking slot at the convention.)

Contrary to the desires and expectations of Democratic Party officials (who had hoped that the front-loaded primaries would produce a quick winner), I expect these five candidates will all stick around for a while.

Dean will rebound from his troubles in Iowa. Reports of his death are greatly exaggerated. His campaign will be much more effective in states holding primaries (as opposed to caucuses). Add to that the fact that New Hampshire voters are notoriously contrarian when it comes to endorsing the Iowa victor, and I expect Dean to hang on by the skin of his teeth and win New Hampshire.

The real question in New Hampshire is whether Edwards can make a surge. I haven't seen any post-Iowa polls. If he finishes third or higher, and then wins in South Carolina the following week, he could be tough to stop.

I had thought Clark would sweep the Southern primaries, but now I'm not so sure. Edwards's win in Iowa gives him new credibility. We may see Edwards and Clark splitting the South, with Dean and Kerry splitting the North. A brokered convention may be in the cards.

If Kerry gets the nomination, he will (sad to say) not win a single Southern state (no matter whom he picks as VP). His patrician air combined with his New England upbringing just will not play down here. Bush would defeat him handily, I fear. (I believe Clark and Edwards are the best bets to defeat Bush. Clark because he combines a Southern accent with a military background, and Edwards because he can deliver North Carolina, which might be enough to tip the scales.)

If Kerry wins, he will (cluelessly) select former Georgia Senator Max Cleland as his running mate. Max has been in Kerry's camp for a while now, and is obviously desirous of VP consideration. For his part, Kerry often speaks glowingly of Cleland. Max is a nice fellow, but frankly not that sharp. He is more loved than respected. Expect many campaign trail blunders if he is VP nominee. He would not even be able to deliver his home state of Georgia.

Spoke
01-21-2004, 11:20 AM
Correction: I meant Edwards's strong second-place showing in Iowa gives him new credibility.

Lord Ashtar
01-21-2004, 11:32 AM
Won't happen, absent a genuinely incapacitating health event. And if that happens, Dubya's veep will be someone who isn't likely to use it as a springboard for 2008.

Why?

Jeb.

I've said this a number of times before. I'll put my wallet where my mouth is on this.

I'll take this bet. Something happens to Cheney and he needs to be replaced. If GWB picks his brother, you'll win. Anyone else, I win. What do you think?

furt
01-21-2004, 11:34 AM
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]Edwards is 51 years old. (He just looks younger.) ...

Yours is the standard rap on Edwards, but I believe it is mostly based on his appearance.Well sure, but politics is ABOUT appearance. Edwards can win, but he is going to have to work hard to overcome the "lightweight kid" tag.

Bricker
01-21-2004, 11:40 AM
Not to speak for RTFirefly, but I didn't get the sense he was saying W would pick his brother as a VP replacement, but rather that W would pick someone without ambition for further office for the VP slot, to clear the way for Jeb to earn the nominee spot for the GOP in 2008.

Then it's the battle of the former Presidents' familes: Jeb Bush vs. Hilary Clinton.

I hope that doesn't happen. It would be very strange for the Presidential list to go Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton -or- Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush.

- Rick

Marley23
01-21-2004, 11:58 AM
Well sure, but politics is ABOUT appearance. Edwards can win, but he is going to have to work hard to overcome the "lightweight kid" tag.
True, but if Bush can overcome that, I think Edwards can. He's already got the advantage of being a better speaker.

Shodan
01-21-2004, 12:06 PM
You're on. An under-$50 bottle of champagne v. an under-$50 bottle of champagne brandy, of the winner's choice within those parameters. May the best prognosticator win!Never thought I would say it before, but go Dean! I am assuming the winner will supply the loser with his home address to have the bottle mailed to him.

Can I ask what makes you think that Bush is grooming Jeb to replace him?

Regards,
Shodan

PS - Bricker -

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton - I never thought of that!

RTFirefly
01-21-2004, 01:01 PM
Shodan - shoot me an email (addy's in my profile) and we'll work out the details without cluttering the thread.

Lord Ashtar - Bricker has read me correctly. If Cheney must be replaced, it will be by someone who doesn't intend to use the VP post as a springboard, because Dubya doesn't want to throw obstacles in the path of a potential Jeb-in-08 run. But Jeb won't be that veep; not a chance.

RTFirefly
01-21-2004, 01:26 PM
Shodan - I don't think Dubya's grooming Jeb for anything; Jeb's a talented politician in his own right, is currently serving his second term as governor of one of the most populous states in the nation, and has a family name that ensures good name recognition. He's a viable candidate for the '08 nomination without any help from his brother.

All I'm saying is that Dubya would have the courtesy not to create or enhance the standing of a potential competitor for his brother in such a race by his choice of veep replacement, should Cheney step down.

Jonathan Chance
01-21-2004, 01:40 PM
THIS is exactly why I want to be ringmaster of this thread!

A week from today I'll call the winner!

Lord Ashtar
01-21-2004, 02:13 PM
Lord Ashtar - Bricker has read me correctly. If Cheney must be replaced, it will be by someone who doesn't intend to use the VP post as a springboard, because Dubya doesn't want to throw obstacles in the path of a potential Jeb-in-08 run. But Jeb won't be that veep; not a chance.

Well, I had to try, didn't I? ;)

Stoid
01-21-2004, 03:18 PM
If Kerry gets the nomination, he will (sad to say) not win a single Southern state (no matter whom he picks as VP). His patrician air combined with his New England upbringing just will not play down here. Bush would defeat him handily, I fear. (I believe Clark and Edwards are the best bets to defeat Bush. Clark because he combines a Southern accent with a military background, and Edwards because he can deliver North Carolina, which might be enough to tip the scales.)


You are not alone in this view, and I have to say this speaks ill of Southerners, and if I were one I'd be offended. Because what you are implying is that they vote based on a surface persona more than any other thing, and they will choose a "good ol boy" over a "patrician" just cuz it makes them feel more comfortable. Which is a lame, ignorant reason to vote for or against someone.

And sometimes I think the Civil War has never ended.

(Reminds me of a funny thing that happened when I was visiting Atlanta 20 years or so ago. I was amazed by the amount of construction going on at that time, it seemed one couldn't travel a block without hitting a torn up street or a new building going up. So I asked someone who was working on all this why there was so much construction and rebuilding going on. His reply? "Ain't you heard? Sherman burned Atlanta!" Cracked me up and disturbed me all at once.)

plasticbryan
01-21-2004, 03:46 PM
I think that Edwards will win the nomination. What makes Edwards electable is his looks, we really are that simple.

As for New Hampshire, Kerry will win and Edwards will finish a surprising third.

Also, the Panthers will win the Super Bowl.

Spoke
01-21-2004, 04:45 PM
You are not alone in this view, and I have to say this speaks ill of Southerners, and if I were one I'd be offended.

Ah, but you're not a Southerner. For if you were, you'd know that I only speak the truth, and would find no cause to take offense.

Because what you are implying is that they vote based on a surface persona more than any other thing, and they will choose a "good ol boy" over a "patrician" just cuz it makes them feel more comfortable.

No. I'm saying that a significant portion of Southerners feel that way. Enough to turn an election in battleground Southern states.

And I'd go further and say that it's not just Southerners who feel this way. I think that (unfortunately) a lot of people give politicians the "beer test," as in: "Would I feel comfortable sitting down with this guy for a beer?" Gore (a Southerner) failed that test. Bush passed it. Kerry fails that test.

Which is a lame, ignorant reason to vote for or against someone.

Aww. We love it when you sweet talk us like that.

And sometimes I think the Civil War has never ended.

Why? Gore (as I've noted) had the same failings.

Matter of fact, one thing I like about Howard Dean (primal screams notwithstanding) is that he passes the beer test. He comes across as a regular guy. You can imagine yourself watching a football game with him. His manner does not reek of prep school condescension (a la Kerry and Gore).

Left Hand of Dorkness
01-21-2004, 04:56 PM
You are not alone in this view, and I have to say this speaks ill of Southerners, and if I were one I'd be offended. Because what you are implying is that they vote based on a surface persona more than any other thing, and they will choose a "good ol boy" over a "patrician" just cuz it makes them feel more comfortable. Which is a lame, ignorant reason to vote for or against someone.

I frankly don't think any better of most of the population: I think a huge number of people vote for candidates based on superficial criteria, such as, "Cool! A movie star! Let's make HIM president!"

Daniel

RTFirefly
01-22-2004, 06:30 AM
The Boston Globe - WBZ-TV (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/polls/012104_tracking_poll/) and Boston Herald (http://news.bostonherald.com/national/national.bg?articleid=600) post-Iowa polls both show the same thing:

Kerry 31%
Dean 21%
Clark 16%
Edwards 11%
Lieberman 4%

The Zogby (http://www.zogby.com) and ARG (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack) 3-day tracking polls that should come out later this morning will be taken M-T-W so will still have a day of pre-Iowa in them.

Jonathan Chance
01-22-2004, 07:48 AM
No sack-dancing, RT! It's ungentlemanly.

But it DOES add some spice to the contest, doesn't it?

E-Sabbath
01-22-2004, 09:22 AM
Again, that's consistant with expectations. A quick, large boost to the winner, and Dean's outburst seems to have hurt him. (I don't think it was any worse than a speech at a pep rally, but I've not _seen_ the speech. Just heard it.)

Clark, however, has _been_ campaigning all along, and he's still in third. He's dead. And he has stated repeatedly he's not going to be VP. If this is an accurate summation of his goals, he's dead except as a rub he can give someone.

Edwards: I didn't mean he _was_ young, I know how old he is, but I keep hearing him _described_ as young. Compared to the rest, he is. I think the perspective is that he's being pitched as young, and it's not helping. I can see him as president one day, I _certainly_ like the way he's been running his campaign, and he seems like the kind of man I'd be proud to have as the President. (Saying nothing about his views, simply his character)

I don't think it's going to be this time, though.

Kerry and Dean are going to be fighting for the lead. Clark's only going to be there as a spoiler.

Honestly, this is, as far as I can tell, the best crop of politicians the Dems have sent out in ages. Now they've shaken most of the trailing oddballs, I think I can honestly say that if _anyone_ can beat Bush, one of these men is the right choice to do it.

On the other hand, I'm registered republican, I _am_ a libertarian at heart, and an actual conservative... which tells you where I stand.

Bush forming a government program to council marriages _alone_ is enough to make me go "What the hell?" Ignoring the _rest_ of the issues, for the moment, it annoys the heck out of me to see a putative republican doing something like that.

Jonathan Chance
01-22-2004, 09:31 AM
Ah, but would it make you consider voting for Kerry or Dean.

That's the important question. Will GWB's expansion of government and the growing deficit influence some borderline voters to vote away from GWB or simply stay home?

RTFirefly
01-22-2004, 09:39 AM
Shodan - There were some problems with my ISP yesterday. If you emailed me yesterday, could you please re-send? Thanks.

Calliope
01-22-2004, 09:41 AM
E-Sabbath, Clark's not dead by a long shot. I'm generally much more liberal than he is, but I will vote for him. And I dare say he is going to win the nomination and the presidency. Why? Not only is he good looking, intelligent, and in the possession of some pretty hard to beat credentials, but this is Bill Clinton's candidate. And if there is anyone who knows how to win an election, particularly against a well-funded Bush, it's Bill Clinton.

My money is on Clark.

RTFirefly
01-22-2004, 10:03 AM
No sack-dancing, RT! It's ungentlemanly.

But it DOES add some spice to the contest, doesn't it?It does.

But my post really wasn't intended to be celebratory; there's still a lot of volatility out there. The poll results were new news, and it gave me the chance to get links to four tracking polls in one place.

Still, I think that in order to win NH, Dean has to do well in tonight's televised debate. The burden is really back on him to show voters why they should pick him over Kerry, Clark, and Edwards. If the Dems ultimately win this election, they'll forever owe Dean a debt for having brought the party back to being willing to take on the GOP head-on. But now that the other viable candidates have caught up with him there, he's got to show voters what else he's got that they don't. And I can't see what that might be.

Shodan
01-22-2004, 04:19 PM
RTFirefly - you've got mail.

It will be interesting if, in the debate tonight, the other Dems go after Kerry as the putative front-runner, try to finish off Dean once and for all, or try to remain above the fray and look Presidential. I am sure Sharpton will have any number of race-related "gotchas" ready for Kerry if he chooses to do so.

I think Dean's best chance would be to play on the "angry" image and try to make it look passionate. Go after Bush, and blame anyone who doesn't play along as being divisive. If he can bring it off, and his concession speech was just a fluke.

Of course, the New Hampshire primary could be just as big a surprise as the Iowa was.

Regards,
Shodan

Jonathan Chance
01-23-2004, 08:40 AM
Try this kids...

One of my pals who covers The Hill just offered me 500-1 odds that GWB wins.

So I bet him $50.

I'm giving him the chance to check with his wife before confirming the bet. I think that's only fair, don't you?

Menocchio
01-23-2004, 09:41 AM
Try this kids...

One of my pals who covers The Hill just offered me 500-1 odds that GWB wins.

So I bet him $50.

I'm giving him the chance to check with his wife before confirming the bet. I think that's only fair, don't you?

I'm pessimistic about the Democratic chances, but I'd take that bet! Damn!

Menocchio
01-23-2004, 09:49 AM
Hmmm... I suppose I should add some substance to the debate.

Dean's still slipping in New Hampshire, as is Clark. If Dean can't pull a strong outcome out of his hat, he might as well go home. South Carolina won't be as hospitable as his own neighbors.

Edwards and Clark will do much stronger, and Kerry, although at a slight disadvantage, will also show well due to his momentum.

The questions are: Can Clark make a comeback? He's in more trouble than Dean at this point. He'll do better in the South, but Edwards will overshadow him.

Who's the next out? My money says Lieberman is waiting to use NH as an excuse to drop out.

I predict a too-close-to call Edwards/Kerry melee. Which is good, as they're probably the two most electable.

RTFirefly
01-23-2004, 10:07 AM
Try this kids...

One of my pals who covers The Hill just offered me 500-1 odds that GWB wins.

So I bet him $50.

I'm giving him the chance to check with his wife before confirming the bet. I think that's only fair, don't you?Yeah, the wife might want to know they're on the hook for $25K. :)

The polls this morning are all over the place. They've all got Kerry in front, of course, but they give different readings of the size of the lead, and the relative standings of Dean, Clark, and Edwards.

The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/polls/tracking_poll/)'s 2-day tracking poll, reflecting polling done on Wednesday and Thursday, is the most current. It has Kerry-Dean-Clark-Edwards-Lieberman at 34-19-14-11-3%.

The other three polls are 3-day tracking polls. Zogby (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=790) and ARG (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/) show the results of polling Tuesday through Thursday, while CNN/USA Today (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/elec04.poll.kerry.lead/index.html) is a day behind, with M-T-W polling.

Zogby has Kerry-Dean-Clark-Edwards-Lieberman at 30-22-14-7-6, and ARG has Kerry-Clark-Dean-Edwards-Lieberman at 31-20-18-11-7. CNN/USA has Kerry-Dean-Clark-Edwards-Lieberman at 30-25-18-11-8, and also Kucinich with 4%, while nobody else has him above 1%. And CNN/USA is also problematic since 1/3 of its polling was pre-Iowa - old news.

The interesting stuff is in the second tier here, IMHO. Is Clark really down around 14%, per Zogby and the Globe? Or is he up around 18-20%, per ARG and CNN/USA? That's a nontrivial difference, and it also tells you whether his support is picking up or diminishing over time. Similarly with Edwards: if he's still struggling in single digits, per Zogby, he's running out of time to nudge his numbers up into a better bracket, but if he's at 11% like everyone else says, then he's been steadily gaining ground over the past week and a half, and if he just continues to pick up at the same rate between now and Tuesday, he could pull a respectable tie for third here.

Over the weekend, the tracking polls will start to reflect the results of last night's debate, which I didn't see since I don't have cable. But it sounds like while nobody shot themselves in the foot, nobody exactly stood out from the others that much either, except for possibly Kerry. So it doesn't look like last night will rearrange things much.

RTFirefly
01-23-2004, 10:50 AM
I'm pessimistic about the Democratic chances, but I'd take that bet! Damn!Who wouldn't? But I'm actually starting to be optimistic about the Dems. And I don't mean just the Presidential election; I mean the whole party. I think there's a chance - just a chance - that we may be at a turning of the tide. I think the last time I was optimistic about the party's fortunes was in early 1994, before Clinton's health care push bogged down, and before Paula Jones surfaced in the news. But a bit of good cheer is starting to sneak into my heart these days when I think about the landscape.

We've got good candidates. The Dem nominee is going to be Kerry, Edwards, or possibly Clark. Whichever one of them ends up being the nominee, he will be a strong candidate. If Kerry wins, he will have continued to shed his New England reserve enough to be passionate about the things he stands for. If it's Edwards, he will have had to convince people that, in addition to having the Elvis factor on his side, he's also got enough substance to him to be up to the job. And if Clark wins, he'll have had to connect with the everyday concerns of voters, and not just demonstrate that he can run a war. So whoever wins will come out of this season looking even stronger than he looks today.

But, better than that: they're making the affirmative case for the things Democrats should stand for, if there's going to be any point to being a Democrat. A little over a year ago, I was griping that the Dems were losing because they couldn't beat something with nothing, no matter how piss-poor that something was. That's changed; our guys are going after them now. And this is what makes me optimistic. Ever since 1994, it seems like the Dems have been playing defense, hoping to not give up too much ground. The GOP always had the ball, was always pushing their agenda further and in new ways, and the Dems were just reacting and playing defense. That seems to finally be over now, at long last.

I don't yet know if the Dems will take the White House in November, but I'm starting to think it may be closer to even odds than at any time since 9/11/01. But I think that if the Dems do win, it will be a win with coattails, because it'll be a win that will go to the roots of the differences between the parties. And that will mean that voters that vote for the Dem nominee will have a good reason to keep pulling the Dem lever further down the ballot.

And while right now, I'd like to see Dean drop out of the action as quickly and quietly as possible, he's the guy the Dems should thank if all this comes to pass. He showed them that Dem voters were practically starving for someone who would take on the GOP, and finally they got the message.

That's why I am hopeful about politics, for the first time in a decade.

rjung
01-23-2004, 03:42 PM
One of my pals who covers The Hill just offered me 500-1 odds that GWB wins.
Hmmm... did the Bush Administration just award an exclusive contract to Diebold to provide electronic voting machines for the 2004 election?

RTFirefly
01-24-2004, 04:53 PM
We've got three W-Th-F tracking polls to look at, and one Th-F poll (Boston Globe). Here's the numbers for all of them, with BG=Boston Globe, ARG=American Research Group, CNN=CNN/USA Today, and Zog=Zogby, in Kerry-Dean-Clark-Edwards-Lieberman order:

BG (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/polls/tracking_poll/) : 35-15-15-12-5 (+/- 5%)
ARG (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/): 34-15-19-13-6 (+/- 4%)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/24/elec04.prez.main/index.html): 35-23-14-11-? (+/- 4%)
Zog (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=791): 31-22-14-8-7 (+/- 4.1%)

The big question here is, who has Dean's support right, ARG and the Globe, or CNN/USA Today and Zogby? The gap between 15% and 22-23% is significant, both statistically and in the colloquial sense. Gallup's doing CNN's polling, and I'd hesitate to bet against Gallup and Zogby both. So I'd personally lay my money on Dean's support holding up in the lower 20s. It could still be an interesting weekend; Kerry hasn't won me a bottle of champagne yet.

ARG's been doing its tracking poll in NH since December, but you've gotta wonder why they see a bunch of Clark support that nobody else does.

The other question is who's right on Edwards' support, Zogby or everyone else? I guess we'll find out all the answers Tuesday night.

P.S. If you go to Zogby's site, he's saying a lot on the basis of polling changes that aren't statistically significant. His three-day numbers have a 4.1% margin of error, and his one-day numbers that he talks about should have roughly a 7% margin of error. You look at the changes in his numbers, and you look at the margin of error, and you scratch your head.

Sam Stone
01-24-2004, 05:23 PM
Jonathan Chance said:

One of my pals that covers the hill just offered me 500-1 odds that Bush will win

Wow. Can I get in on that action? I'll mortgage the house.

There is no way that ANY president is a 500-1 favorite against a field of contenders 9 months from an election. Take his money. Then wait for Vegas to offer odds, which will likely be more like 2-1 in Bush's favor, and place an offsetting bet. It's called playing the middle. You're guaranteed a profit.

RTFirefly
01-25-2004, 03:34 PM
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]We've got three Th-F-Sa tracking polls to look at, and one F-Sa poll (Boston Globe). Here's the numbers for all of them, with BG=Boston Globe, ARG=American Research Group, CNN=CNN/USA Today, and Zog=Zogby, in Kerry-Dean-Clark-Edwards-Lieberman order:

BG (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/polls/tracking_poll/) : 38-15-14-12-7 (+/- 5%)
ARG (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/): 38-16-17-15-5 (+/- 4%)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/25/elec04.prez.main/index.html): 38-25-10-?-12 (+/- 4%)
Zog (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=792): 30-23-13-9-9 (+/- 4.1%)

Everybody but Zogby has Kerry's support at 38%; Zogby has him at 30%. Once again, CNN and Zogby have Dean's support up in the low to mid 20s, while the other two have him in the mid-teens. CNN has Edwards losing ground (although they don't say how much; they don't present the results in a table with their article, and they keep leaving stats out of their text), while everyone else has him gaining strength to varying degrees. CNN has Clark way down at 10%, ARG has him at 17%, and the other two are halfway between. Everyone has Lieberman picking up support, although the polls have him at anywhere from 5% to 12%.

It's obvious that some polls are seeing a very different state of affairs than other polls. Do we have a statistical 3-way dead heat for second right now, or is Dean still way ahead of Clark and Edwards, and still with a chance to catch Kerry? There's an enormous gap between Zogby's 7-point Kerry lead, and the Globe's 23-point Kerry lead.

On Wednesday morning, some pollsters are going to look like they knew things the other guys didn't, and some pollsters are going to look absolutely, totally clueless. In two and a half days, we'll know which was which.

Stoid
01-26-2004, 12:30 AM
I like Newsweek's national poll. If the election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush, 49 to 46.

Jonathan Chance
01-26-2004, 06:16 AM
Yeah, but we don't elect on the popular vote.

I'm betting (literally) that this sonuvabitch election will be close based on the electoral college just like the last one. Most of the red and blue states will stay the same and you'll see BOTH candidates focusing on 3-6 states that will, in effect, decide the winner.

HoldenCaulfield
01-26-2004, 11:52 AM
The latest Zogby poll has Kerry-Dean-Clark-Edwards at:

31-28-13-12

It seems like much of his support came from the Undecided category, which dropped ten percent; I have a feeling that headlines like "Kerry Lead Shrinks" and "Dean's Numbers Climbing" might reinvigorate some former Dean voters.

RTFirefly
01-26-2004, 04:03 PM
We've got three F-Sa-Su tracking polls to look at, and one Sa-Su poll (Boston Globe). Here's the numbers for all of them, with BG=Boston Globe, ARG=American Research Group, CNN=CNN/USA Today, and Zog=Zogby, in Kerry-Dean-Clark-Edwards-Lieberman order:

BG (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/polls/tracking_poll/) : 37-17-11-12-7 (+/- 5%)
ARG (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/): 38-20-15-16-5 (+/- 4%)
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/elec04.prez.main/index.html): 36-25-13-10-10 (+/- 4%)
Zog (http://www.zogby.com): 31-28-13-12-9 (+/- 4.1%)

I'm not sure these polls are all describing the same universe.

Saxman
01-26-2004, 06:12 PM
And Zogby changed methodologies THE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION!

How egregiously unprofessional is that?

RTFirefly
01-27-2004, 09:58 AM
We've got only two Sa-Su-M tracking polls to look at, since CNN's not put any numbers on their Web site, and one Su-M poll (Boston Globe). Here's the numbers for all of them, with BG=Boston Globe, ARG=American Research Group, and Zog=Zogby, in Kerry-Dean-Clark-Edwards-Lieberman order:

BG (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/polls/tracking_poll/) : 37-20-8-12-7 (+/- 5%)
ARG (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/demtrack/): 35-25-13-15-6 (+/- 4%)
Zog (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=794): 37-24-9-12-9 (+/- 3.8%)

CNN just says that Kerry's the frontrunner, and it's a statistical dead heat for third among Edwards, Clark, and Lieberman.

Looks like all the polls were taken in the same universe this time. Besides the obvious Kerry-Dean stuff, everybody has Clark slipping (apparently below Edwards, but within the margin of error), Edwards stabilizing somewhere in the low to mid teens, and Lieberman's mini-surge being more mini than surge.

Zogby has a lengthy comment about the changes in his numbers over the past few days, if you follow his link. He also sees one final shift in the momentum: from Kerry surging and Dean slipping after Iowa, to Dean stabilizing and regaining strength, to people abandoning Dean for Kerry again because they want a winner.

I'm kinda bummed that Zogby's final poll has moved in line with everyone else's. Obviously there's no way to verify who really was in touch with the swings in voter sentiment in the days leading up to the primary. I was really hoping for a "this pollster knew what was going on, and that one was out in left field the whole time" moment, but we're not going to get that. All of a sudden, they're all more or less in agreement, so they're going to all be right or wrong together. ARG has consistently shown Clark and Edwards doing a few points better than the other polls, and Zogby and CNN have shown Lieberman running a few points better than ARG and the Globe have. But that's what we're down to, in terms of pollsters potentially separating themselves from the pack.


NH primary voting ends at 8pm, according to CNN.

RTFirefly
01-27-2004, 10:15 AM
ARG (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/) polled SC, OK, and AZ over the weekend, if you're interested. Overall, Kerry, Clark, and Edwards are bunched at the top, with Dean and Lieberman trailing. Edwards has a lead in SC, Clark in OK, and while the poll shows Kerry ahead of Clark by 3% in AZ, the margin of error is 4%. Kucinich and Sharpton are down in the 1% range, except in SC where Sharpton polls 15%.

Jonathan Chance
01-27-2004, 10:27 AM
Man, this is one funky primary season.

RTFirefly
01-27-2004, 08:44 PM
Kerry 39%, Dean 25%, Edwards 13%, Clark 12%, Lieberman 9%, Kucinich 2%.

And CNN's projected Kerry as the winner.

Jonathan Chance
01-27-2004, 10:03 PM
With 64% reporting The Washington Post has it:

Sen. John F. Kerry 24,339 39%
Howard Dean 15,151 24%
Sen. John Edwards 7,896 13%
Gen. Wesley K. Clark 7,383 12%
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman 5,844 9%
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich 930 1%

The question really becomes now...

Can Edwards make enough headway in South Carolina to stay in contention?

Delaware is a non-binding primary coming up on Jan 31. Then we head for...

2/3 SC, MO, AZ, WA

That could finish it off if Kerry does well in all spots.

By the time most of the south comes into play (3/9) it could all be over except choosing the running mate.

I predict that Lieberman's poor showing in New Hampshire leads to him dropping out. Kucinich and Sharpton are both in it for the long haul (especially with Sharpton polling at 15% in South Carolina).

I do, however, find it vastly amusing that GWB got 3 votes in NH and Hillary Clinton got 1!

:cool:

Sam Stone
01-27-2004, 11:17 PM
The crash and burn of Dean shows how quickly the conventional wisdom of election prediction can change. Guessing the final outcome even now is still a crapshoot, although you've gotta give Kerry pretty good odds.

That said, here's what I think will happen:

The entire field we have now will go to Super Tuesday. On that day, Edwards moves into second place behind Kerry. Dean may be close, or may stay in second. Clark gets hammered. Lieberman does about what he's been doing so far.

After SD, Clark and Lieberman withdraw. Kerry, Edwards and Dean soldier on. Kerry's weakness in the south, coupled with Edwards' strength, leaves the two of them standing, but makes it clear to Kerry that he needs a VP like Edwards to do well in the south, and he has to do well in the south in the general election to win.

So, in the end Kerry maintains his lead. Edwards at some point throws his support to Kerry in a deal to be VP. Dean is finished. Dean will never be picked as a VP candidate - he's a liability, not an asset.

But this is a guess with some pretty big error bars around it. The shortened primary season really makes this a crapshoot. The results of Super Tuesday could vitually lock up the nomination for Kerry, or it could throw the race wide open again. But my guess is that Edwards and Kerry will be the big winners on ST.

E-Sabbath
01-28-2004, 01:24 AM
Well, so far, things are shaping up as I predicted. Dean's not dead by a long shot... he actually still has more delegates than Kerry, at the moment. And the news reports I'm hearing give him a positive spin, in that a lot of people are being quoted as saying, "Well, we voted for Kerry, but we _wanted_ to vote for Dean."

But Kerry's in the driver's seat. Edwards is a strong third.

Clark is _tied_ for third, after skipping Iowa, getting the midnight vote, and not having a single thing to dog him. He's a dead man walking. If he's not interested in the VP position, he's effectively eliminated as a concern, except for any potential he has to drag someone else down thrashing as he goes.

Leiberman is in psychosis-mode. Nine percent to twelve percent is a three way tie. He's not going to quit, either. He was VP last time, and he's hardheaded enough to keep going. We're good till Super Tuesday with him.

The last two are good for noise for a while, but they're sideshow clowns.


On the OTHER hand, we've got a record turnout, beating 1992 by thousands. Which rocks. Especially during this cold snap. I think this is going to be the second most exciting election in decades.

2000 was the most exciting... but only on election night.

RTFirefly
01-28-2004, 06:07 AM
2000 was the most exciting... but only on election night.On election night in 2000, I told my wife I was staying up until it was decided. I eventually changed my mind. :)

Marley23
01-28-2004, 06:19 AM
With 97% reporting, the NY Times says it went like this:

John Kerry 38.5% [82,594]

Howard Dean 26.3% [56,353]

Wesley Clark 12.4% [26,554]

John Edwards 12.1% [25,849]

Joe Lieberman 8.6% [18,392]

Dennis Kucinich 1.4% [3,015]

Al Sharpton .2% [342]

I'm amused that Kucinich got about 10 times as many votes as Sharpton. Get over yourself, Al. [Not all the polls give him 15% in S.C., by the way. I saw one that put him at about 4%.]

I agree with a lot of what I'm hearing. I don't know what Clark is supposed to do, since his two big selling points are gone (being a veteran and not being Dean). Sounds like Dean stabilized a bit in the last few days, but he sure has fallen a long way. Kerry's firmly in front, and it sounds like he's leading in Missouri, which I think has the most votes next Tuesday. Edwards has admitted he HAS to win South Carolina. He's the favorite since it's his turf... I figure anything the other guys can do there is gravy. In particular, if Kerry comes in a close second, it might reduce the concerns he won't play in the South. The others just need points anywhere they can score them.

RTFirefly
01-28-2004, 06:23 AM
With 97% of precincts reporting, here's how it looks:
Kerry 82,594 39%
Dean 56,353 26%
Clark 26,554 12%
Edwards 25,849 12%
Lieberman 18,392 9%
Kucinich 3,015 1%
Other 1,589 1%

Liberal
01-28-2004, 06:37 AM
I'm curious as to how well Edwards will really do in South Carolina. From my experience in living there, there is an almost universal grudge factor against its more cosmopolitan and sophisticated neighbor to the north. When I was there, for example, the power-brokers in Columbia refused to allow the brand new Carolina Panthers to play temporarily in their beloved Williams Brice Stadium simply because they feared that the Panthers would identify themselves too much with Charlotte, and therefore with North Carolina. Edwards was born in South Carolina, but he moved to North Carolina. There has always been a bad taste about Hugh McColl for doing the same thing. McColl is the chairman of Bank of America, which used to be Nations Bank, and before that was North Carolina National Bank. Unless it has gotten over its parochialism in the past few years, I expect that right many South Carolinians might snub Edwards.

Shodan
01-28-2004, 08:26 AM
Note to self:
Never play poker with a man named "Doc'
Never get involved in a land war in Asia
Never match wits with RTFirefly when death, or champagne, is on the line

Inconceivable!

Regards,
Shodan

Enjoy the champagne, RT. ;)

Jonathan Chance
01-28-2004, 08:46 AM
And my idiot friend just confirmed his offer of 500-1 odds for me. Our $50 - $25,000 bet is on.

I quote his wife "You better not lose".

Merkwurdigliebe
01-28-2004, 10:33 AM
Any way I can get in on that action? Bush won't get reelected with a 500 to 1 chance if he was running against the green party. Oh, I had a nice synopsis of the race typed out as well, but I'll have to give the short version now because some computer in the internet decided to piss me off.

Dean is toast, unless he does better. Okay that was written to be intentionally shady sounding. But it seems that these short intervals between elections tend to make people pick winners. I mean nobody knew that kerry would be in the position that he is now? Dean lost Iowa for many reasons, but one of the main ones that I've heard is that Kerry's ground organization in Iowa was much better than anyone elses. This apparently got him the win in NH as well. If Dean had managed to win Iowa I doubt that he would have lost NH either. Based on this turn of events, I'll say that its probably not looking good for Dean. Dean had been claiming, and many of us believed that he could change the way that politics work. Dean was supposed to turn out new voters. That hasn't happened to the extent that was thought. His defeat in Iowa was very bad and his second place in NH isn't enviable either. If he had come out with a close second within a few % of Kerry then I could concieve of it happeneing. However, Dean's got a lot of grassroots. Sure, it may only be a tiny percent of the electorate, but those 600k supporters for dean can keep him going on life support for as long as he wants. Clark is looking real bad here considering that he skipped Iowa. Ditto for Joementum. But I gotta admit. Thank God for Lieberman for giving us the most rediculous way to sum up his joke of a cantidacy. Joementum is terrific! Clark isn't looking good. He skipped Iowa and NH wasn't a sure win, so he is gonna be scratching for support. http://www.pkarchive.org/2004DataCenter.html

THis website is a great resource for judging the 2/3 states. looks like Edwards has SC locked up. So, here's how I call it.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/scdebate/

this also seems to suggest that he holds peoples attention the best of all candidates. But then again, Clark will win Oklahoma. But will it do anything for him? So with 1% of all primaries and cauces reporting, I am ready to make the call. I say it will be John Kerry will get the nod.

No, but that's only just so I can go on the record. In my opinion I think it will be JFK but I almost equally belive it will be John Edwards. If John Edwards were in the lead now he'd be unbeatable. I think John Edwards is recently getting attention because he wears well, and the more people get to know him they like his positive message. If the process were longer I would give it to him as well. The short schedule is working against him though. Anyway to me its simply a question of "Just how much attention can he get" Thats all he needs to be able to pull into slot number 2. Once he gets there, he's got it sealed. In fact if JE manages to get into slot number 2 in short enough order, i think he'll be fine. I for one am going to be interested.

I like the idea of a long, drawn-out primary as long as it doesnt' get too bloody. It just gives Bush less time to use his money.

E-Sabbath
01-28-2004, 10:36 AM
Delegates Total Delegates
Kerry 84,229 39% 13 94
Dean 57,788 26% 9 113
Clark 27,254 13% 0 30
Edwards 26,416 12% 0 36
Lieberman 18,829 9% 0 25
Kucinich 3,104 1% 0 2
Sharpton 345 0% 0 4
One hundred percent reporting results. Yeah, I can't format.

sibyl
01-28-2004, 08:50 PM
Wow, lots of people here suckered in by the agenda of the media.

New Hampshire means very little. It has a very poor record predicting the winners of the nomination. The top two in the state were both from neighboring states. This is some kind of indication of anything? :rolleyes:

Dean's campaign is over. He isn't polling strongly in any of the states. The state he is counting on, Missouri, has him at 5% or so. None of the others have him beyond the 3 or 4.

Kerry has a whole new ballgame to face. He might win a couple, but he will in no way run away with anything. If his history actually gets out (i.e. the media stops being his free advertising) this could be his death knell.

Edwards has a lot to go up against. He hasn't been strong on any issues. The only state he is strong in is South Carolina, and that lead isn't set in stone by any means.

Clark is actually way way stronger than any of the other candidates going into this. He had a horrible weak with the media in NH. The debate was a setup for him, he was never mentioned except to ostracize him for something he said, etc. And he still pulled 3rd place.

Hes polling very strong in Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico. Depending on how the debate goes I'd say he'll actually be the big winner of Feb. 3rd and get some much needed attention.

Jonathan Chance
01-28-2004, 08:57 PM
OK, then, tough guy... ;)

Make your call.

Everyone give me the order of finish for

Kerry
Dean
Edwards
Clark
Lieberman
Kucinich
Sharpton

for

Oklahoma
South Carolina
Missouri
Arizona
Delaware
Michigan (Feb 7)
New Mexico
Washington (Feb 7)


Let's not always see the same hands.

RTFirefly, John Mace, and furt are our leaders so far!

sibyl? You go first.

sibyl
01-28-2004, 09:02 PM
Delaware Kerry Clark Edwards
South Carolina Edwards Clark Kerry
Arizona Clark Kerry Dean
New Mexico Clark Kerry Edwards
Oklahoma Clark Kerry Edwards
Missouri Kerry Edwards Clark
Michigan Kerry Clark Edwards
North Dakota Kerry Clark Edwards
Washington Clark Kerry Edwards

Did top 3 for each state (and added North Dakota for Feb. 3rd).

John Mace
01-28-2004, 09:06 PM
Kerry - 1
Dean - 2
Edwards - 3
Clark - 4
Lieberman - 5
Kucinich - 7
Sharpton - 6

But I think Lieberman will drop out after next week. I don't understand Kucinich's trip point for dropping out. If he hasn't done so yet, I can't figure out what revelation he's waiting for.

Dean will regain some of his momentum, but won't give Kerry a real run for his money. Clark will continue to sink and Edwards will rise, but the latter won't overtake Dean.

How's that for being specific???

John Mace
01-28-2004, 09:10 PM
Oops. Didn't read you whole post, JC.

My prediction was for the final final, not any one particular state's results.

Jonathan Chance
01-28-2004, 09:18 PM
I'll accept either. But bonus bragging rights are awarded for calling each state.

Be warned!

And sibyl is right! Add North Dakota to the list. I was trying to do that from memory. And who ever remembers North Dakota? Certainly not my mom...she's from South Dakota.

E-Sabbath
01-28-2004, 10:33 PM
A: What John Mace said, except I'm not sure about his Kunich-Sharpton. K's going to beat S.

My bad state by state estimates...
Generally, I see Kerry Dean Edwards.

South Carolina Edwards Kerry Dean

In the south, Edwards has a _slim_ chance of passing Dean.
In the north, Dean has a slim chance of passing Edwards.

So, outside of South Carolina, these are my _second_ guesses for specific states

Delaware Kerry Dean Edwards
Arizona Kerry Dean Edwards
New Mexico Kerry Dean Edwards
Oklahoma Kerry Edwards Dean
Missouri Kerry Edwards Dean
Michigan Kerry Dean Edwards
North Dakota Dean Kerry Edwards
Washington Dean Kerry Edwards

The thing is... yeah. I see a potential for Edwards to pass Dean starting at the end of Super Tuesday. But not before then. If Dean falls significantly third at any point in Super Tuesday, Edwards might have a chance against Kerry.

But it's doubtful. I don't think the Kerry-Dean-Edwards one two three is going to change much. Barring unforseen scandal.

Stoid
01-28-2004, 10:33 PM
Clark is actually way way stronger than any of the other candidates going into this. He had a horrible weak with the media in NH. The debate was a setup for him, he was never mentioned except to ostracize him for something he said, etc. And he still pulled 3rd place.

Hes polling very strong in Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico. Depending on how the debate goes I'd say he'll actually be the big winner of Feb. 3rd and get some much needed attention.

Your mouth to God's ear.

Or keyboard to screen, as the case may be.

E-Sabbath
01-28-2004, 10:41 PM
In the north, Dean has a slim chance of passing Kerry.

Jello
01-28-2004, 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by sibyl

Clark is actually way way stronger than any of the other candidates going into this. He had a horrible weak with the media in NH. The debate was a setup for him, he was never mentioned except to ostracize him for something he said, etc. And he still pulled 3rd place.

Hes polling very strong in Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico. Depending on how the debate goes I'd say he'll actually be the big winner of Feb. 3rd and get some much needed attention.


I disagree. Sure, some of his debate questions were too harsh, but he answered them all very poorly, and then appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday and got the same questions again, answering them just as poorly.

He could have had a staff member look into Bush's service with the National Guard; he could have refined his answers on any of the questions. But when he was on-air, he couldn't even answer a simple question on his position on abortion without fumbling. The more people get acquainted with Clark, the less they'll like him, I think. Once you brush past the biography he's not much of a candidate.

Evil Captor
01-28-2004, 11:49 PM
On reviews, I didn't see anybody summarizing the results for the New Hampshire primary, so here it is. Apologies if anyone has already done so, and apologies if I've left anyone off the list -- some of the longer posts i just scrolled though, if the predictions were buried in a lot of text I would have missed them.

Actual Results * Me * Codzilla * Spoke-
Kerry Clark Kerry Dean
Dean Dean Clark Edwards
Clark Kerry Edwards Kerry
Edwards Lieberman Dean Clark
Lieberman
Kucinic

Looks like Codzilla nailed the winner. I correctly predicted Dean would claim second place and none of us got any of the others. Good thing real money wasn't riding on this thing.

Evil Captor
01-28-2004, 11:56 PM
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]OK, then, tough guy... ;)

Make your call.

Everyone give me the order of finish for

Oklahoma -- Kerry Clark Dean Edwards
South Carolina -- Clark Edwards Kerry Dean
Missouri -- Dean Kerry Clark Edwards
Arizona -- Clark Dean Kerry Edwards
Delaware -- Kerry Clark Dean Edwards
Michigan (Feb 7) -- Clark Dean Edwards Kerry
New Mexico -- Dean Edwards Kerry Clark
Washington (Feb 7) -- Clark Kerry Dean Edwards

Marley23
01-29-2004, 03:26 AM
New Hampshire means very little. It has a very poor record predicting the winners of the nomination.
True, but I think New Hampshire and Iowa have only picked the same Democrat twice, and that guy has gotten the nomination both times.

Dean's campaign is over. He isn't polling strongly in any of the states. The state he is counting on, Missouri, has him at 5% or so. None of the others have him beyond the 3 or 4.
No argument there. He hired a new campaign manager today and says he's going to compete in all the states next week. Some of his advisers were telling him to pick his battles and concentrate on Michigan in two weeks, which he seems to be resisting for the most part.

Kerry has a whole new ballgame to face. He might win a couple, but he will in no way run away with anything. If his history actually gets out (i.e. the media stops being his free advertising) this could be his death knell.
I think he can stand up to scrutiny as well as anybody else.

Edwards has a lot to go up against. He hasn't been strong on any issues. The only state he is strong in is South Carolina, and that lead isn't set in stone by any means.
True.

Clark is actually way way stronger than any of the other candidates going into this. He had a horrible weak with the media in NH. The debate was a setup for him, he was never mentioned except to ostracize him for something he said, etc. And he still pulled 3rd place.
I disagree entirely. Clark campaigned in New Hampshire ALONE for five weeks and barely beat out Edwards for third. He was going to be the anti-Dean, but Dean is no longer the leader. Instead, he finds himself competing with Kerry, and it's not going well for him. Veterans are mostly going for Kerry, and if Clark can't get even them, I think it removes a lot of the lustre from his resume.

Hes polling very strong in Oklahoma, Arizona, and New Mexico.
To me, poll results don't matter right now unless they came after New Hampshire and the bounce Kerry will get from a big win.

Merkwurdigliebe
01-29-2004, 07:22 AM
This is another reason why I think Edwards might be the best.

It seems to be a fact of life that whoever is the eventual nominee is bound to get Gored by the press. I don't really understand this at all, considering how the media is so liberal :rolleyes: Well, anyway, unless the press has somehow had enough blood at Dean's expense (which I doubt) the next cantidate that climbs to the top is bound to get slaughtered like Dean. Everyone has their dark spots. The question is which of the cantidates that we have now would do the best shrugging off the media craziness.

At first I thought this would be Dean. One of the main problems about getting Gored is that the media will try to portray them as those who will do anything to win, and will flip-flop on positions easily. Dean normally didn't respond to the media when he said something controversial. This seemed to work good at the beginning. I seemed to feel that Dean was going to pass the media BS tester simply because he had strong positions and he attracted people because of his steadfast positions. At least this is the way it appeared. So the media gored him with other "negative" aspects of his character. If Dean gets the nomination, I think it would be pretty good considering how he has already been through media hell.

Kerry seems the most likely cantidate to get Gored. Imagine if the situation in Iraq worsens. What if he criticizes the president for taking us to war. Then I see the headlines and the talking heads repeating these memes in the following order.

Senator Kerry, How do you say you disagree with the way the war has gone when you voted for it in the Senate?

Senator Kerry, drawing fire today for his war vote, complained it was the wrong war at the wrong time

Senator Kerry, heavily criticized for being hypocritical about his Iraq War vote, criticized Bush again today about the situation in Iraq

Kerry has tons of flip flops like this in his voting record just waiting to get gored.

Clark I can't say much about, as I haven't seen the way he handles himself. I don't really know how much he has to waffle about, as his life as a private citizen is pretty short.

Edwards is the one who I think can truely wiggle his way out. Edwards is so good at it, that although you know he is full of shit, you really don't care because he's so darn good at it. His reassuring demeanor will go over very well, I believe.

Thoughts?

Jonathan Chance
01-29-2004, 08:21 AM
Thanks, EC! I'd forgotten to do that! You're the official helper!

Our winners...so far...

John Mace
furt
RTFirefly
codzilla

Keep it up, kids! Who's #1?

ataraxy22
01-29-2004, 06:17 PM
Jonathan Chance said:



Wow. Can I get in on that action? I'll mortgage the house.

There is no way that ANY president is a 500-1 favorite against a field of contenders 9 months from an election. Take his money. Then wait for Vegas to offer odds, which will likely be more like 2-1 in Bush's favor, and place an offsetting bet. It's called playing the middle. You're guaranteed a profit.

Hmm. If my barely mathematical brain managed to do this thought exercise right, given these hypothetical odds (500-1 Bush (your friend) and 2-1 Bush (Las Vegas)) and you played the middle, you should bet $334 in Vegas for every dollar you bet with your friend, and you will be guaranteed at least $166 return on every dollar bet with your friend! WOW!

(all amounts to the nearest dollar)

Marley23
01-29-2004, 06:25 PM
Merkwurdegliebe,

Kerry seems the most likely cantidate to get Gored. Imagine if the situation in Iraq worsens. What if he criticizes the president for taking us to war. Then I see the headlines and the talking heads repeating these memes in the following order.
Much much worse is it going to get? Saddam's not going to win. The problem is that the post-war period just drags on, with a couple of American soldiers dying daily.

Senator Kerry, How do you say you disagree with the way the war has gone when you voted for it in the Senate?
He's already dealt with that. Read his position on it.

Senator Kerry, drawing fire today for his war vote, complained it was the wrong war at the wrong time
Makes no sense. How is he going to draw more fire for voting for the war than Bush has for STARTING it?

Senator Kerry, heavily criticized for being hypocritical about his Iraq War vote, criticized Bush again today about the situation in Iraq
Again, he's dealt with this. His criticism is that Bush failed to do what the Congressional resolution asked- get international support, try diplomacy first, and act only if it was really necessary. And he says that Bush has lost the peace.

Kerry has tons of flip flops like this in his voting record just waiting to get gored.
Cite?

Merkwurdigliebe
01-29-2004, 07:47 PM
I'll have you know I'm just playing devil's advocate to explain Kerry's vunerabilities. I am not saying there is any credence to these arguments. I don't have to answer these questions because the media doesn't have to either. Nobody is going to go to the media and ask "cite" because they don't give a shit. Mark my words, Kerry will get Gored. Look in this GD it isn't about me proving that Kerry is unfit for being a president. Its about the media screwing Kerry over about his record supporting no Child left Behind, Iraq II while he criticizes it, not supporting Iraq I.

I would like to see Kerry as Prez. I am not trying to down him. But this is what the media will do. They have no need for fact as long as it is "factesque"

Marley23
01-29-2004, 08:05 PM
Its about the media screwing Kerry over about his record supporting no Child left Behind, Iraq II while he criticizes it, not supporting Iraq I.
The media hasn't done this so far, and it sounds like you're presupposing they'll have some grudge or ax to grind. Part of Gore's problem was that he handled himself badly and ended up with the press not liking him. I don't think that's the case with Kerry.

Re: "Cite?" I was asking what in his record will be attacked as hypocritical since you said he had a history of it.

The only purpose I've seen so far in predicting the media's actions is to justify one's own pessimism. The media might do a lot of things. If you're suggesting they make things up entirely, then they could say Kerry fought for the VietCong. Whatever. Both candidates will make all kinds of charges, and they'll both have ample opportunity to respond.

Last week, we heard they'd 'Gore' Dean. Now it's Kerry, and if Edwards keeps going it'll be him. So what? They'll be able to defend themselves.

Chance the Gardener
01-30-2004, 12:13 AM
Hmm... I'm uncomfortable with predictions lately. I predicted Dean would win Iowa comfortably, with Kerry in a respectable second. I then predicted Kerry would win New Hampshire and that Dean would take a close second. While Dean was second, it certainly wasn't close, so I'm not counting that. When the presidential election comes around, I'm usually better at calling the states. But this was rough, and I'm doubting myself.

That said, let's review the facts: Kerry's star is rising; Edwards is looking comfortable; and Dean's campaign has just been reshuffled today, and is effectively broke. Clark seems to be having trouble catching fire, and Lieberman's a wet match.

So here goes:

Arizona—Kerry, Clark, Edwards
Delaware—Kerry, Dean, Edwards
Missouri—Kerry, Edwards, Clark
New Mexico—Dean, Kerry, Clark
North Dakota—Clark, Kerry, Edwards
Oklahoma—Kerry, Clark, Dean
South Carolina—Edwards, Kerry, Sharpton

Michigan—Kerry, Dean, Edwards
Washington—Kerry, Dean, Edwards

I predict that February 3 will not be a good day for Dean. He's not running advertising anymore, hoping to save up his cash to make an impression in Michigan and Washington and beyond. I don't see it working, but who knows? His new campaign manager, Roy Neel, is no novice to this business, so he might be able to get things rolling along. It just looks like the Dean campaign's in too much trouble to save itself.

It remains to be seen who's got the right stuff to make it past February 3. I think Clark's not going to have a great day, himself, and neither is Lieberman. Clark will stick around through at least part of February but likely won't bother with Super Tuesday, while Lieberman... well, he'll either come to his senses or he won't. Either way, it's going to become clear to enough voters that there's no point in even considering the guy—as if this hasn't happened already. Sharpton and Kucinich want to hang on until the convention.

Will Edwards pull ahead? Maybe. I certainly don't see him coming apart in the campaign. Whether he can catch Kerry is another issue. I suspect not, but time will tell.

And yes, I really do mean that about Sharpton coming in third in South Carolina. He's got some pretty strong support there, and while I don't see him winning the state by any stretch, I do see him doing well enough to come in third or fourth. I'm saying third.

Jonathan Chance
02-02-2004, 08:19 AM
Chance could well be right. NPR's Morning Edition this morning commented that Dean was not expecting to win ANY state tomorrow.

Any last minute predictions, folks? Anything?

E-Sabbath
02-02-2004, 09:40 AM
Generally, I see Kerry Dean Edwards.

Missouri Kerry Edwards Dean



Hm. Looking more likely. Apparently, I put more thought into this than I thought I had. Again, Dean's not going to win anything, but he's going to place just about everywhere.

E-Sabbath
02-02-2004, 09:45 AM
Oh, yes. Leiberman is looking more and more delusional, day by day. Thirteen to twelve to nine percent is still not a three way tie for third.

And today, he's quoted as stating he has the most _national_ support.

He'll still quit after Super Tuesday, but... I'm expecting entertainment.

Kunich and Sharpton are already irrelevant, but... I don't know if they'll quit, especially not Sharpton. He's living off his supporters, and they're putting out for him.

Clark is Dead Man Walking. Heard less about him than I have about Leiberman. He was set up to be the fake Dark Horse by the Hillary side, and then a _real_ Dark Horse showed up, and then Kerry faked inside and to the lead. Clark is way off to the sidelines now.

Chance the Gardener
02-02-2004, 10:16 AM
Chance could well be right. NPR's Morning Edition this morning commented that Dean was not expecting to win ANY state tomorrow.

Any last minute predictions, folks? Anything?

Well, I was calling New Mexico for Dean, but I'm not so sure any more. My thinking now is that Kerry's more likely to take New Mexico (with Dean in second) and North Dakota (with Clark in second.) Kerry will be a close second in South Carolina, and may well win the state (though not by very much.) If Kerry runs the table Tuesday, then Edwards will know it's over. In fact, it strikes me as ridiculous that Edwards would count a close win in South Carolina as a clear victory. It seems to me that that has more to do with the papers needing a little drama to write about. A close win in South Carolina will not make Edwards look viable; a close loss in South Carolina will make Kerry look viable.

Clark, I think, would make a fine governor for Arkansas in a couple of years. And Dean? Well, he could do Tommy Thompson's job... but I'm making predictions that stretch a tad beyond February 3, and that'd be another thread entirely...

RTFirefly
02-02-2004, 05:19 PM
I'm really coming in at the end of this one! Busy at the office Thursday, out of town Friday through Sunday, then in a class most of the day today. Any speculating I'd be doing at this point would be just parrotting the consensus of the polls I've seen, which means tomorrow I expect Kerry to win pretty much everywhere except SC and possibly OK; I expect Edwards and Clark to rack up a lot of second-through-fourth finishes, with Edwards winning SC and one of them possibly winning OK; I expect Dean to rack up a lot of third and fourth place finishes, with maybe a second somewhere, and Lieberman to finish fifth a lot, although he could finish as high as second in DE. That's pretty vague, but that's all I'm gonna do tonight.

RTFirefly
02-03-2004, 05:59 AM
A lot can and will happen between now and November. But the latest CNN poll (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/index.html) shows Kerry beating Bush by 53-46%.

The poll, with a 4% margin of error, shows Edwards and Clark each in a statistical dead heat with Bush, while Bush beats Dean, 52-45%.

Realistically, Bush still has to be the favorite in this race. But the odds are shrinking.

Jonathan Chance
02-03-2004, 08:46 AM
$25,000 and a bottle of Scotch...

Here I come!

Merkwurdigliebe
02-03-2004, 10:38 AM
I won't particularly make any predictions, but I suppose that today we'll see Edwards win SC and OK. I can't be certain but it appears to be swinging his way at the last minute. If Edwards manages to pull out a big one in SC and OK then I think it takes Kerry down a notch or two and Clark as well. It should be said by now that Dean is probably out of the race at this point.

RTFirefly
02-03-2004, 05:08 PM
Two (http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_02_01_corner-archive.asp#024351) sites (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/02/03/exit_polls.html) of opposite political leanings have posted the following early exit poll results:

AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13.
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28
DE Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11

Since these were up on the National Review site by 1:46pm EST, with plenty of voting time left (hell, with the voting day only a few hours old in AZ), it'll be interesting to see whether they hold up.

In addition to reporting the exit poll data, the second link reminds us that the exit polls in NH made the Kerry-Dean race there look much closer (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/01/27/exit_polls.html) than it ultimately turned out to be.

Spoke
02-03-2004, 05:38 PM
Interesting. And surprising to me that Edwards may have a lead in Oklahoma.

I have a question for those more familiar than I with the nomination process:

Suppose Kerry sweeps the Northern and Western states, and Edwards sweeps the Southern states. Edwards turns in some solid second-place finishes in Kerry states and vice-versa. (All of which is firmly within the realm of possibility, IMO.) Meanwhile, Dean and Clark are hanging onto a few delegates earned in second-place finishes, plus some shaky commitments from super-delegates.

Where does that leave us? Would Kerry have enough delegates for nomination? Would we see a brokered convention? Would Terry McAuliffe's head explode? Could Edwards combine forces with Dean and/or Clark to take the nomination away from Kerry? Help me game this one out.

Left Hand of Dorkness
02-03-2004, 05:38 PM
God, it'll be cool if Edwards takes two states. I think that boy could change American politics, could make people proud of their government again.

For a little while, at least, he could restore honor and dignity to the White House.

Daniel

Spoke
02-03-2004, 05:50 PM
Here's a summary of the delegate accumulation process. (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/)

Byzantine. And I shan't do all the math involved in answering my own question. Too many variables.

E-Sabbath
02-03-2004, 06:38 PM
Arizona Kerry Dean Edwards
AZ Kerry 46, Clark 24, Dean 13.

Missouri Kerry Edwards Dean
MO Kerry 52, Edwards 23, Dean 10

South Carolina Edwards Kerry Dean
SC Edwards 44, Kerry 30, Sharpton 10

Oklahoma Kerry Edwards Dean
OK Edwards 31, Kerry 29, Clark 28

Delaware Kerry Dean Edwards
DE Kerry 47, Dean 14, Lieberman 11, Edwards 11

The first are my predictions, the second are the current polls. Clearly, I didn't expect Dean to run out of money. Oklahoma was where Clark had to win. He's not winning. Still, not bad, I got Missouri, and some of the rest of all the states.

Early prediction: Edwards now has mojo. Swap him and Dean in my earlier predictions for anything _after_ today, as I think I said earlier. Sharpton, even in SC, is polling worse than Jesse Jackson ever did. He's not even going to be a power broker at the convention.

Merkwurdigliebe
02-03-2004, 07:44 PM
Interesting. And surprising to me that Edwards may have a lead in Oklahoma.

I have a question for those more familiar than I with the nomination process:

Suppose Kerry sweeps the Northern and Western states, and Edwards sweeps the Southern states. Edwards turns in some solid second-place finishes in Kerry states and vice-versa. (All of which is firmly within the realm of possibility, IMO.) Meanwhile, Dean and Clark are hanging onto a few delegates earned in second-place finishes, plus some shaky commitments from super-delegates.

Where does that leave us? Would Kerry have enough delegates for nomination? Would we see a brokered convention? Would Terry McAuliffe's head explode? Could Edwards combine forces with Dean and/or Clark to take the nomination away from Kerry? Help me game this one out.



I was just about to pose a similar question. That IS a good question and the whole race could come down to the 800 or so super-delegates. It would NOT be a brokered convention, I believe. A brokered convention is when after superdelegates decided who they support (which they have until the last minute to do so) nobody has a majority of votes. I suspect that either Kerry or Edwards would get the nomination with the remaining superdelegates (between 600 and 500 would be a wild guess). If it comes down to this I predict an Edwards win. If Edwards wins OK (and SC which is pretty certain now), then he'll have won the expectations game and Kerry will have broken even. If Edwards continued to surge he would have solved the "electability problem" himself (considering the polls recently showing him beating Bush) and he would probably be the wisest choice for unaligned (and hell even Dean pledged Superdelegates bc he has a lot). Kerry or Edwards? who would you want? The answer is obvious to me, but I think that wise party strategists would rather have Edwards at the top of the ticket than Kerry if he had shown the ability to sweep a few states. Plus you gotta count the Dean supporters. People realize now that Dean can't win, and I would imagine that most Dean supporters would go to Edwards rather than Kerry.

RockyRaccoon
02-03-2004, 07:55 PM
It would be interesting to know the second choices of those who voted for Clark, Dean, Sharpton and Lieberman. In other words, would their votes have gone to Edwards or Kerry had their candidates not been in the race. It probably would make a difference in "what the numbers say" in a couple of the close states.

E-Sabbath
02-03-2004, 08:19 PM
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/dates/02/03/

Let's watch those numbers, folks!

Jonathan Chance
02-03-2004, 08:43 PM
The Washington Post is reporting that (with 7% reporting) Clark has a VERY slight lead in Oklahoma (37 votes)(!!!).

Kerry has taken Delaware and Missouri (MO being a big prize) and Edwards has South Carolina in the bag.

AZ, ND and NM close in 18 minutes. They'll make a call right away. I'd bet the world on that.

John Mace
02-03-2004, 08:44 PM
Edwards is doing great, but he can't overtake Kerry.

I'll stick with my original predicitons for the final final, although if I were the cheating type, I'd probably say Edwards 2nd and Dean 3rd knowing what I know now.

Lieberman drops out tonight (or tomorrow at the latest).

Jonathan Chance
02-03-2004, 08:48 PM
My sources tell me 'Fightin' Joe' has a big press conference laid on for tomorrow.

Better luck next time, Joe!

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised in Dean dropped out shortly. The early number place him:

AZ: Not Reported
DE: 4th
MO: 3rd
NM: Not Reported
ND: Not Reported
OK: 5th (!!!)
SC: 5th (!!!)

I predict he's finished. I know his campaign says he's counting on a win in Michigan in a few days but I just don't see how that'll happen with these numbers. If he doesn't place strongly or win in NM or AZ that'll be all she wrote.

Merkwurdigliebe
02-03-2004, 08:53 PM
According to CNN.


The question is now, If Edwards wins OK and SC he knocks out Clark and Lieberman should follow leaving the other John and Dean who is basically out of the game for now. Given the new attention and momentem, do you think that he'll be in position to beat Kerry? Will an Edwards/Kerry race be beneficial for JRE? I have to wonder. My position is that if it happens that way, it will be a very close race with possibly the superdelegates making the deciscion.

Jonathan Chance
02-03-2004, 09:19 PM
AP is projected Kerry to win AZ. No numbers yet, though.

Washington Post is projecting Kerry to win in ND. With 38% of the precincts reporting Kerry has 50% of the vote.

Still nothing from New Mexico.

E-Sabbath
02-03-2004, 09:19 PM
I will be darned! Leiberman dropped out!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/elec04.prez.main/index.html

Thought he was good for another week.

RTFirefly
02-03-2004, 09:21 PM
...according to CNN.

Edwards may currently be up in OK, but it's a thin lead - 600 votes last I looked - and it's been switching back and forth between him and Clark (who was up by 450 just a few minutes ago) as new precincts report.

RTFirefly
02-03-2004, 09:31 PM
And Clark's ahead by a whopping 108 votes in OK at 9:26pm, with 59% of precincts reporting.

Edwards is also 18 votes behind Lieberman in the race for second in Delaware, with 92% in.

Jello
02-03-2004, 09:53 PM
Edwards up by 95 in OK with 81%. If Clark stays alive, he'll just be taking votes away from Kerry. As an Edwards man, I'm giddy. Check out the CNN exit polls when they divide the voters into issues.

E-Sabbath
02-03-2004, 09:54 PM
What I'm really cheered about is that I keep hearing "Record turnout" for these primaries. Let's hope that this election really gets people involved!

Jello
02-03-2004, 09:56 PM
Er...that's 81% reporting, of course. And now he's up by 90 votes.

Big indicator for future campaigning - for those in OK and SC who picked the economy as their top issue, Edwards won in bigger margins than for anything else.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/OK/index.html

asterion
02-03-2004, 10:04 PM
Will the outcomes in Arizona and New Mexico tell us anything useful? I'm from New Mexico, so I have an interest in how it and surrounding states vote. (I would've voted absentee myself, but as I've said before, I'm registered independent and it's not an open caucus.) The pundits on Fox were making a big deal of how there's a large Hispanic population and are more conservative overall--which I'll agree with depending on the the area we're talking about. Will this give us any insight into, say, Utah, Colorado, California, and Texas, all Western states and more conservative (except, of course, California) than, say, the Northeast?

For that matter, why do they keep bringing up Richardson as a possible VP selection? I can see why people might think it, and while I have nothing against Richardson (I did vote against him for Governor as I like gridlock in our banana republic), I'm not sure he'd be a better choice than say the loser of the Kerry/Edwards race (if it goes to two men in another week or two). I'm just not used to thinking of the New Mexico delegation or the state officals being incredibly important in Washington.

asterion
02-03-2004, 10:07 PM
Oh, I should add that it looks like Kerry has Arizona. No word yet on New Mexico, but I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to Kerry as well. Wasn't that the polling over the weekend?

E-Sabbath
02-03-2004, 10:12 PM
Delaware is in!



updated: 10:09 p.m.,
February 3
Kerry 16,729 50% 14
Lieberman 3,683 11% 0
Edwards 3,657 11% 0
Dean 3,439 10% 0
Clark 3,145 10% 0
Sharpton 1,885 6% 1
Kucinich 343 1% 0

CarnalK
02-03-2004, 10:13 PM
Edwards moving up to second in Delaware and taking OK sure would help in a little bet I got going. :)

at 10:05 with 88% reporting: Clark up by 760 in OK over Edwards.

but oops, seems at 100% Edwards loses second place to Lieberman by 26 votes(that could still probably have wiggle left)

Chance the Gardener
02-03-2004, 10:36 PM
Will the outcomes in Arizona and New Mexico tell us anything useful? I'm from New Mexico, so I have an interest in how it and surrounding states vote. (I would've voted absentee myself, but as I've said before, I'm registered independent and it's not an open caucus.) The pundits on Fox were making a big deal of how there's a large Hispanic population and are more conservative overall--which I'll agree with depending on the the area we're talking about. Will this give us any insight into, say, Utah, Colorado, California, and Texas, all Western states and more conservative (except, of course, California) than, say, the Northeast?

Well, the outcomes in Arizona and New Mexico will tell us something useful for Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. Fox is full of it—the West isn't so utterly conservative. Many of the Rocky Mountain states have long been conservative, but that trend has been changing in some of them. The four states I mentioned are borderline states, and have been trending more Democratic in recent years. Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana are solidly Republican, and yeah, you can't expect those to change any time soon.

In general, the Western states are more conservative than the Northeast, yes, but they're less conservative than, say, the Deep South. I would say that Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada are in play for the general election, even though all of them but New Mexico went for Bush in 2000, and Gore took New Mexico by only about 500 votes. A strong Democrat would play convincingly in the Southwest. (And I'm not including the West Coast states. Those are fairly reliable Democratic territory, Alaska excepted.)

For that matter, why do they keep bringing up Richardson as a possible VP selection? I can see why people might think it, and while I have nothing against Richardson (I did vote against him for Governor as I like gridlock in our banana republic), I'm not sure he'd be a better choice than say the loser of the Kerry/Edwards race (if it goes to two men in another week or two). I'm just not used to thinking of the New Mexico delegation or the state officals being incredibly important in Washington.

Richardson has foreign policy experience, and he's Hispanic. Those are two recommendations, particularly if the nominee is Edwards, since Edwards lacks foreign policy experience. I like Richardson, myself, although I've never even been to your fine state (though I've long been dying to see it.)

And as to important New Mexicans in Washington: Pete Dominici has long been influential, though I don't like him much. Jeff Bingaman is still in his first term, but I'm betting he's got a bright future in politics.

telechus
02-03-2004, 11:02 PM
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised in Dean dropped out shortly.

Dean will most likely stay until March 02. He has money, around $6 million since Iowa. The strategy that Dean has laid is to fight for delegates and outlast the other candidates. It's a long shot, but it could happen.

Chance the Gardener
02-03-2004, 11:08 PM
It would be interesting to know the second choices of those who voted for Clark, Dean, Sharpton and Lieberman. In other words, would their votes have gone to Edwards or Kerry had their candidates not been in the race. It probably would make a difference in "what the numbers say" in a couple of the close states.

If you're curious, my first choice was Howard Dean. Second for me is John Kerry, and John Edwards is my third. I'd be pleased with either of them.

We're voting here in New York on March 2. If Dean doesn't call it quits after Wisconsin, I might cast my vote for him. If not, I'll vote for Kerry. To me, there is no bad outcome in this.

We're coming for you, Junior. November 2, you're Texas toast.

Menocchio
02-03-2004, 11:35 PM
I originally liked Dean, and still think he's right on the issues, but now he's coming off as alternately whiny and psychotic.

Now I like Kerry on the issues, and Edwards for respectibility and charisma. I'm leaning Kerry but may turn Edwards by the time my state comes around.

John Mace
02-04-2004, 02:03 AM
Dean will most likely stay until March 02. He has money, around $6 million since Iowa. The strategy that Dean has laid is to fight for delegates and outlast the other candidates. It's a long shot, but it could happen.

This is a tough call, but I think it depends on what we see in WA, MI and WI. If he doesn't do well in any of those, he's out.

Jonathan Chance
02-04-2004, 02:08 AM
I agree with John. The boy has GOT to cross the finish line in SOME state soon.

Kerry, Edwards, and Clark all have victories somewhere now. Dean's got diddly right now.

John Mace
02-04-2004, 02:26 AM
From Rueters tonight (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040204/pl_nm/campaign_dc):

According to early delegate projections by MSNBC, Kerry picked up at least 88 delegates on Tuesday for a total of 201. Edwards picked up 59 for a total of 100, putting him in third place behind Dean, who picked up 3 for 117. Clark picked up 24 for a total of 55.

Note that Dean is still ahead of Edwards in the delegate count. But Kerry is essentially at 2x his nearest rival. It's a race for second place, and I predict Clark will be the next casualty*. At this point it appears that Edwards has more staying power than Dean.

Lieberman dropped out tonight as I predicted, but I'm not expecting any genius awards for that. :)

*Ignoring the inconsequential bids from Sharpton and Kucinich.

RTFirefly
02-04-2004, 06:43 AM
Note that Dean is still ahead of Edwards in the delegate count. The key there is the superdelegates. Dean's got 11 delegates from Iowa, 9 from NH, and he picked up a mere 7 last night (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/dates/02/03/). (Complete delegate scorecard here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html).) So the vast majority of Dean's delegate total consists of party pols who jumped in and endorsed Dean when his tide was running high. Since he can't win or even stay viable by picking up more superdelegates, which won't happen anyway, his delegate total is illusory. Edwards (80) and Clark (48) are both outpacing Dean (27) in the count of delegates won as a result of primary and caucus voting.

But it's ironic, isn't it? The party outsider, being propped up by support from the party establishment he ran against.
It's a race for second place, and I predict Clark will be the next casualty*. At this point it appears that Edwards has more staying power than Dean.It depends on Dean's level of sheer obstinacy. Dean could decide to hang in there until the bitter end, regardless of his failure to win anything, which I predict will continue. I can't see him even coming in second in any of this next week's states (MI, WA, ME, TN, VA) except for Maine.

JC's right - at some point he has to win somewhere. Clark's now got a win, which lets him stay at the table (without looking churlish or ridiculous) at least through Super Tuesday. (That's March 2, when CA, NY, OH, MA, MD, GA, CT, RI, and VT all vote.) Dean could outlast Clark, but only by refusing to see the handwriting on the wall. I predict Dean will go into Super Tuesday in fourth place in the 'delegates won from primary/caucus voting' count, if he hasn't yet conceded. And I don't think he will.

Jonathan Chance
02-04-2004, 07:56 AM
The big question now is:

Can Kerry win TN or VA next week. I feel reasonably confident he can take the other more northern states. But he needs to show he can take some southern states to put Edwards in his place.

If Edwards takes both VA and TN then it's time for the Kerry camp to try to cut a deal with Edwards quick.

John Mace
02-04-2004, 08:38 AM
RTF: Point noted about Dean's delegates. I should have pointed that out in my original post.

JC:

I'm not too familiar with TN, but VA is a very different animal than SC. It's technically a southern state, but not in the sense that SC is. It's got a good amount of high tech industry, and one could reasonably argue that Northern VA is in a world of its own. I don't think the southern boy strategy will help Edwards very much there.

It is interesting to watch which states Kennedy dares set foot in to help out Kerry. Funny how we didn't see him in SC. :)

Merkwurdigliebe
02-04-2004, 08:47 AM
The Deaniacs are a little silly with the delegate count. Imagine for a moment if you will that you have endorsed Dean as a cantidate. At the moment it would be foolish to let go, because there are a lot more delegates to be given out, but it is important to realize that they aren't stupid. If Dean has 100 superdelegates at the end and 200 regular delegates, why would the superdelegates stay with Dean? I highly doubt that Dean's supporters would like a JFK victory, considering the bad things that have happened between the two. Now what if JRE was within 100 delegates of beating Kerry? I know this isn't certain, but it would be possible Imagine if you will that Dean manages to grab, say, another 200 pledged delegates from here and there through various third place finishes. It could happen although that the Dean superdelegates could block a kerry nomination. If I were Dean I would rather see Edwards than Kerry. Dean and Kerry have been mortral enemies from the start, and Dean could possible get a good position in the Edwards admin if he were to send his superdelegates still loyal to him to Edwards. The only way that Dean's delegates will matter (if he doesn't have a shot, which looks more and more likely every day) is if he decides to use them to decide a close outcome. Otherwise it would be a brokered convention where anything could happen. I am not sure how it could turn out.

Spoke
02-04-2004, 10:04 AM
I think Clark's win in OK badly hurt Edwards. It keeps Clark in the race, and now Clark and Edwards will split the vote of Southern Democrats. That may well allow Kerry to slip in some victories in Southern states. Virginia in particular comes to mind.

Of course, it's still conceivable that Edwards and Clark could join forces at some point. Their combined delegate count down the road might present a real challenge to Kerry. Plus, you will recall that both Edwards and Clark have received the implicit blessings of Bill Clinton at different points, so maybe the big guy could broker a merger of their campaigns.

I still say the Democrats are committing suicide if they nominate Kerry.

RTFirefly
02-04-2004, 12:54 PM
RTF: Point noted about Dean's delegates. I should have pointed that out in my original post. No prob.

I'm not too familiar with TN, but VA is a very different animal than SC. It's technically a southern state, but not in the sense that SC is. It's got a good amount of high tech industry, and one could reasonably argue that Northern VA is in a world of its own. I don't think the southern boy strategy will help Edwards very much there. I've lived most of my life in VA, and while it's certainly not as southern as SC (which I also have a few years' worth of familiarity with), the more southern parts of the state still dominate its politics, despite NoVa.

I'll also say this: my observation is that northern Virginia, in and of itself, is more conservative than the Maryland suburbs of DC. I think the conservatives in the DC area just gravitate in that direction.

To sum up, I think Edwards' southernness will help him a great deal in VA. But VA also has its share of military bases, hence military families and lots of ex-military folks. That can't exactly hurt Kerry or Clark. Should be an interesting race.

My familiarity with TN extends only as far as Upper East Tennessee, as they call it - the Tri-Cities area and environs. But Survey USA (http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html) has Kerry ahead of Clark, Edwards, and Dean there, 31-26-20-15%.

Weirddave
02-04-2004, 08:44 PM
All of you Dems rushing merrily about, caught up in the furor of primary campaigning might want to stop and notice one thing ( and this is my prediction ): As of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Kerry is now unelectable in most of the South. Dubya will beat the living fuck out of him on this issue should the two face off in the big dance, and the Christian Majority down south will lap it up. It's one issue that's even bigger than the Iraq war, swinging a lot of those middle-of-the-road voters who are unhappy with the President's lies back onto the Pubbie bandwagon. If Edwards dosen't get the nomination, it's done. Bush wins another 4 years.

Stoid
02-04-2004, 09:20 PM
All of you Dems rushing merrily about, caught up in the furor of primary campaigning might want to stop and notice one thing ( and this is my prediction ): As of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Kerry is now unelectable in most of the South. Dubya will beat the living fuck out of him on this issue should the two face off in the big dance, and the Christian Majority down south will lap it up. It's one issue that's even bigger than the Iraq war, swinging a lot of those middle-of-the-road voters who are unhappy with the President's lies back onto the Pubbie bandwagon. If Edwards dosen't get the nomination, it's done. Bush wins another 4 years.

Hooey. The same subset of people who would base their vote for President on THIS issue is exactly the same subset of people who would vote for Bush come hell or highwater anyway.

Weirddave
02-04-2004, 09:47 PM
Hooey. The same subset of people who would base their vote for President on THIS issue is exactly the same subset of people who would vote for Bush come hell or highwater anyway.

I just realized something. You really are baffled at the way the rest of the country outside California works, aren't you? Truly puzzled that the ultra, ultra liberal environs in which you exist aren't universal? Lemmie tell you something, there are millions of people who are leaning towards moderate views in traditionally conservative areas of the country who could flock to a dynamic Democratic candidate. My mom is an example, conservative Christian, solid Republican, she expressed doubts about voting for Bush a few months ago because she was disturbed that he had lied about WMD, something that would have been unthinkable a year ago. She is exactly the type of voter that the Dems need to attract to have any chance in November. You want to know something else? The issue of gay marriage is far, far more important to her than the lies the President told. If you got out into the real world, you'd find a dozen like her in every diner and McDonalds in the country. *I* don't like it, personally, but that's the reality. Gay marriage is much more of a hot button for people than vague lies about WMD in distant parts of the world. It's not the 700 Club that I'm talking about, they're going for Bush no matter what, like you said. It's the people who fall between the rabid fundies and the Christmas and Easter Christians that I'm talking about, and there are a LOT of them down south.

John Mace
02-04-2004, 09:59 PM
Hooey. The same subset of people who would base their vote for President on THIS issue is exactly the same subset of people who would vote for Bush come hell or highwater anyway.

Stoid: I think The Left should be equally concerned about the "get-out-the-vote" factor this is going to have on the Religious Right. It's hard to say how many middle-of-the-roaders are going to tip towards Bush becuase of this, but it certainly is not going to help the Democratic candidate-- that's for sure.

Mehitabel
02-04-2004, 10:14 PM
I'm confused. John Kerry is also against gay marriage (just a few seconds ago saw him quoted again on CNN about it)--will the problem be that he's not AS opposed to it as Dubya?

Stoid
02-04-2004, 11:38 PM
I just realized something. You really are baffled at the way the rest of the country outside California works, aren't you? Truly puzzled that the ultra, ultra liberal environs in which you exist aren't universal? [/b]

Buffled and puzzled, yes. Unaware of the facts, no.


Lemmie tell you something, there are millions of people who are leaning towards moderate views in traditionally conservative areas of the country who could flock to a dynamic Democratic candidate.

I am very aware of this. Hence my strong preference for Wesley Clark.


My mom is an example, conservative Christian, solid Republican, she expressed doubts about voting for Bush a few months ago because she was disturbed that he had lied about WMD, something that would have been unthinkable a year ago. She is exactly the type of voter that the Dems need to attract to have any chance in November. You want to know something else? The issue of gay marriage is far, far more important to her than the lies the President told.

And she is unusual in this, with respect to the idea that she would make her decisions based on it.

The latest poll I read, I believe it can be found on pollingreport.om, shows that the country is about half and half on the issue. Big surprise...not. My point is that those for whom the issue is a make or break, either way, are a much smaller chunk of the electorate. Most people know that the president isn't going to be deciding that issue, so why base one's vote on it? (And even if he WAS, why base one's vote on it? You telling me your mom would vote for a guy who would do ten things she hates but who won't support gay marriage over a guy who would do ten things she loves but supports gay marriage? All due respect to your mom: that's ridiculous. And I fear for this country if a truly siginificant percentage of people in it think like that. And I repeat: people who do would pick Bush in any case.)

Evil Captor
02-04-2004, 11:50 PM
I think the economy has hurt enough people badly enough over the last three years that a lot of those who might be inclined to vote for Bush because they think he will somehow prevent gay marriage, will vote Democratic just to get some money in their pockets. Pocketbook issues trump social issues for all but the fanatics.

Weirddave
02-05-2004, 12:34 AM
Let me see if I can clarify what I am saying here. If the Dems have an opportunity with some traditionally Republican voters(my mom, for example) who have started to entertain doubts about the President(she dosen't like that he lied and would consider voting for someone else), presenting them with a candidate representing a state that just mandated marriage for gay folks(and no matter how hard Kerry tries to distance himself personally from it, you know the Pubbie spinmeisters are going to run with it far and long) is not the place to start. It negates the "crack" in support for Bush from the get go and perhaps even closes it a bit. Nowhere did I say that this was a hot button topic, or the deciding topic, or the only thing upon which a decision would be based, but it is a strike right off the bat and, it being a domestic issue, is more immediate and personal to a lot of people (why I don't know, but it is. Gay folks marring won't effect me or any other hetero couple I know in the least, but there it is). This is not the place to start when you are trying to unseat a (still) fairly popular incumbant, and I do think it will make enough of a difference in most southern states that are closely contested (a relitively small number of votes, relative to the total votes cast, can swing it one way or the other), making Kerry unelectable in the South.

Spoke
02-05-2004, 09:13 AM
This Democrat agrees with you, Weirddave. In fact my Dad is in pretty much the same boat as your Mom. Traditional Republican voter, but he is displeased with Bush. He has expressed admiration for Edwards, and might even vote for him if he were nominated. At the very least he would probably abstain, denying Bush his vote. But if Kerry runs? Chalk him up as a Bush vote.

The difference between Massachusetts and the rest of the country was drawn in stark terms yesterday. On the same day the Massachusetts Supreme Court was handing down its ruling on gay marriage, the legislature in Ohio, a critical swing state, was finalizing one of the strongest bans on same-sex unions in the country.

Kerry is personally opposed to gay marriage? Won't matter. The fact that he is from the same state that gave us Michael Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and now the gay marriage ruling will be enough to destroy him with swing voters. The ruling only reinforces the "Northeastern Liberal" perception. We might wish that it were not so, but I am out here in swing-voter land, and I can tell you that it IS so.

If Kerry is nominated, the ticket goes down in flames.

Chance the Gardener
02-05-2004, 10:00 AM
While we’re talking about our parents’ voting preferences, I might as well chime in. My mother is a lifelong Republican and has plenty of misgivings about voting for Bush—whom she reluctantly voted for in 2000. The war has not helped her opinion of the Bush administration, and the fact that he’s been raping the economy also turns her off. I quote her: “I don’t think he’s up to the job [of president].” She’s been living and voting in my native western Pennsylvania since 1956—definite swing voter territory in a crucial, vote-rich state.

That said, she doesn’t like Kerry. Gay marriage doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference to her. My father, a lifelong Democrat and very devout Roman Catholic, doesn’t like Bush either, and the gay marriage issue doesn’t change things in his estimation. (For the record, Dad doesn’t give a damn that Kerry’s Catholic, though that probably will make a difference to some people.)

Both my parents are somewhat conservative, and neither has warm feelings toward Bush. The western Pennsylvanian economy has been through the wringer, thanks to Bush and his famous steel tariffs, and that particular swing territory is unswayed by some abstract fear of gays in committed relationships. I agree that Bush’s passionate opposition toward gay marriage won’t make much difference to anyone, though it might help him to rally his base somewhat. If the Bush campaign makes gay marriage a big issue in the campaign, he’ll succeed in further polarizing the electorate, and will probably do himself more harm than good.

spoke, your point about the Ohio state legislature so actively working to ban gay marriage is worth noting, but I don’t think it adequately reflects the priorities of the bulk of Ohioans. Remember that the Republican Party controls both houses of the Ohio legislature, and Governor Taft is a Republican and a strong ally of Bush. Most Ohioans don’t really care about the issue, which is why it can be pushed through without much fuss. Most Ohioans are more concerned that the steel and automobile industries are in such dire shape, and that jobs are disappearing everywhere from Ashtabula to Youngstown. If Pennsylvania or Michigan still had Republican governors, I’m sure you’d see this gay marriage legislation being pushed through in Harrisburg and Lansing right now. Republican governors who want to remain in good standing with the Bush administration will push for this sort of thing, and a Republican-controlled legislature in their states help this. It’s nothing but a calculated political move by those who crave the blessings of their party elites; this won’t have any bearing on the electorate or on the presidential election.

Jonathan Chance
02-06-2004, 08:48 AM
So...

Question for the day: Will Cheney's being hit on two sides (his Chief of Staff in the Plame thing and Halliburton bribery) have a significant effect on the election?

And FYI...my pal with the 500-1 odds is beginning to sweat. He's asking about buy-outs.

Mehitabel
02-06-2004, 09:06 AM
OK, the TIMES mentioned yesterday that Kerry is still anti-marriage but pro-civil unions and would not support a constitutional amendment to ban the marriages; he also voted against DOMA along with most Northeastern politicians.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to have to deal with it much at all and wishes it had never come up so he had to commit to the record, because it's guaranteed to alienate large swaths of the country no matter what you say. But a defining issue? Not unless Bush makes it one.

RTFirefly
02-06-2004, 06:51 PM
All of you Dems rushing merrily about, caught up in the...
I just realized something. You really are baffled at the way the rest of the country outside California works, aren't you? Truly puzzled that the ultra, ultra liberal environs in which you exist aren't universal?
Don't hold back, Dave. Tell us how you really feel.

RTFirefly
02-06-2004, 07:02 PM
Nowhere did I say that this was a hot button topic, or the deciding topic, or the only thing upon which a decision would be based, but it is a strike right off the bat and, it being a domestic issue, is more immediate and personal to a lot of people (why I don't know, but it is. Gay folks marring won't effect me or any other hetero couple I know in the least, but there it is). As of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Kerry is now unelectable in most of the South. Dubya will beat the living fuck out of him on this issue should the two face off in the big dance, and the Christian Majority down south will lap it up. It's one issue that's even bigger than the Iraq war, swinging a lot of those middle-of-the-road voters who are unhappy with the President's lies back onto the Pubbie bandwagon. Gay marriage is much more of a hot button for people than vague lies about WMD in distant parts of the world.Earth to Dave: you're losing an argument with yourself.

Please don't tell me you're turning into one of those posters who doesn't realize we can scroll back up the page and see what's already been said.

RTFirefly
02-06-2004, 07:26 PM
I've spent plenty of time among the fundies myself. And my in-laws are a couple that are more 'on the bubble', so to speak - leaning Republican, certainly, and part of the southern conservative Christian milieu, but haven't checked their brains at the door. We've all got our examples that we'd like to extrapolate the behavior of large chunks of the electorate for.

There certainly are voters who are going to vote for Bush on the basis of gay marriage, over the shitty state of the job market, over a war that's making no sense, over the lies emanating from the White House and their attempt to use 9-11 to justify everything, over Bush's desire to go to Mars when we've got half-trillion dollar deficits (excluding Social Security) lined up, one after the other, for the rest of the decade; over the Bushies' ensuring that people who live off their investments pay lower tax rates, thanks to Bush, than people who work for a living...yes, there are such people.

I don't think any Dem has much chance of landing many of those voters, and it's a waste of time to try.

Josh Marshall had some thoughts about the whole Southern thing in talkingpointsmemo.com recently. He noted that a number of swing states have areas that are South-like, and Dems ignore that at their peril. Central PA, southern Ohio, West Virginia, places like that. Maryland isn't exactly a swing state, but parts of MD are like that too.

But on the whole, those areas are much less religiously conservative than the Southern heartland. Guns matter, defense matters, being tough on crime matters. But posting the Ten Commandments is a bit further down the scale; ditto gay marriages. The gay-marriage issue won't help the Dems in swing states, but I doubt it will hurt them there that much. It will hurt the Dems tangibly in South Carolina, but even Edwards won't take SC from Bush unless it's a landslide.

rjung
02-06-2004, 07:35 PM
Kerry is personally opposed to gay marriage? Won't matter. The fact that he is from the same state that gave us Michael Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and now the gay marriage ruling will be enough to destroy him with swing voters.
Are you truly contending that swing voters are so shallow that the primary, overwhelming factor in their decision of what candidate to vote for is geography? :eek:

Weirddave
02-06-2004, 11:05 PM
Earth to Dave: you're losing an argument with yourself.

Please don't tell me you're turning into one of those posters who doesn't realize we can scroll back up the page and see what's already been said.
Oh, my, I quivver before the time homored RTFirefly technique of selectively quoting parts of posts and stringing them together to create a "meaning" that only he devines instead of making a legitimate arguement. If you would bother to invest in a dictionary, you would note that "X is more of a hot button topic than Y" is not equivilant to saying "X is the most important hot button topic of all", except maybe in bizarro RTF world where what people actually post pales in importance to grinding your particular axe. You caught me in a technical contradiction, I admit, but I thought the fact that in the first quote you've posted I was responding to someone who said that I claimed gay marriage was the only issue involved AND the fact that I clarified (the part you neglected to underline) "the deciding topic, or the only thing upon which a decision would be based" would make the destinction clear enough for most rational people, Mea Culpa if I was wrong. I wasn't counting on someone ignoring the actual arguement in favor of playing anal retentive grammar policeman. Also, what does "As of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Kerry is now unelectable in most of the South. Dubya will beat the living fuck out of him on this issue " have to do with the other two quotes? I stand by the statement, if you feel you can refute it, have at the statement with facts instead of jumping up and down screaming "You're contradicting yourself" rather than adressing, you know, the actual topic.

Evil Captor
02-06-2004, 11:52 PM
Are you truly contending that swing voters are so shallow that the primary, overwhelming factor in their decision of what candidate to vote for is geography? :eek:

The real problem isn't the assumption that they're so shallow that they will vote on the basis of geography, it's the assumption that they know enough about geography to know where Massachusetts is ... or WHAT Massachusetts is ...

Marley23
02-07-2004, 02:27 AM
Just wanted to take a moment to note that my prediction Gephardt would endorse Kerry has come true. I don't think it's a monumental observation or anything, but I made it the night of the Iowa caucuses, and it's nice to be right. ;)

I still have questions about Kerry's purported inability to win in the South. I know he lost South Carolina, we'll see what happens in TN and VA.

Here's my problem: at this point, Clark and Edwards are completely surrendering all the non-Southern states and focusing on the South to try and prove they can win there and he can't. If the three of them were all competing in ALL of the open states and Kerry was consistently losing in the South, I'd feel differently about it. He's going to Tennessee now, I think, and has bought ads in Virginia. Clark and Edwards have abandoned Michigan (the biggest state to have come up so far, where Kerry has a huge lead) and Washington state. So say Clark wins Virginia and Edwards gets Tennessee. Kerry will still have increased his lead because the other two are picking their battles in this manner. Kerry has won states in the East, Midwest/Great Plains, and Southwest. Edwards won the state he was born in, and Clark won Oklahoma - barely - after betting the farm on it. He didn't even make second in Carolina, where he once led. In a way, the strategies of Clark and Edwards make it sound like they're competing to see who would best compliment Kerry on a ticket.

Marley23
02-07-2004, 03:07 AM
Correction - Clark is focusing on Tennessee (and ignoring Virginia), so if he wins anywhere Tuesday, it'll be there. Edwards and Kerry are competing for Virginia.

Chance the Gardener
02-07-2004, 01:38 PM
Marley23, I have to tell you that I didn't see the Gephardt endorsement coming. I didn't think there would be any bad blood between Gephardt and Kerry, but I really did think Gephardt would sit the rest of the primaries out. Frankly, I'm glad this happened; of all the dropouts thus far, Gephardt's endorsement of Kerry would be the most meaningful.

I also agree with you that Kerry's appeal in the South is highly underestimated. While I'm sure Kerry won't sweep the region, I can see him playing well enough to win in Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Louisiana and possibly Virginia in the general election. This will depend on the strength of his campaign, the strength of Bush's, and a whole lot of other things we can't possibly be aware of right now.

Vis-à-vis the primaries, I'll go out on a limb and predict that Kerry will win Michigan, Washington and Maine, and I'll take a similar risk in predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. As to Virginia and Tennessee: I think Kerry is definitely competitive in both, and I think he's got an excellent chance of taking Virginia. Tennessee could break for either Kerry or Edwards. I don't think Clark's really got enough oomph to start thriving in this campaign. The fact that winning Oklahoma was such a chore for him says a lot about how much he'll catch fire in coming elections.

Your problem with Edwards and Clark surrendering the Northern and Western states is a valid one. Somehow the idea that no Democrat can win the election without winning the South has taken over these campaigns. The North, the Midwest and the West aren't foregone Democratic consituencies, and we still need to do well there, too, if we're going to unseat Bush. Ideally, a candidate should be able to win in all fifty states. Kerry seems poised to do well in more states than Edwards or Clark. Further, if Kerry can show that he can win a Southern primary or two as well as the non-Southern ones, that'll take a good deal of the wind out of Edwards' and Clark's sails. In sum, I think you're right: Edwards and Clark are running for vice president, and it looks like Edwards is currently leading in this race.

RTFirefly mentioned Josh Marshall's talkingpointsmemo.com and how it recently said that the Democrats cannot ignore the South. It's true, too. While the Democrats could win the election without carrying a single Southern state, it's important to remember that central Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, West Virginia and southern Missouri all have South-like qualities. I lived in central Pennsylvania for several years and my brother lived in southern Ohio for a few years, and both of us can tell you that this is very much true for those regions. We're from western Pennsylvania, originally, which is certainly not South-like, and which is a considerably more Democratic part of the state. However, Pennsylvania and Ohio are typically 50/50 states in presidential elections, and turning off entire blocs of voters in regions of these states could make a difference. While it certainly wouldn't hurt to pick up a Southern state or two, concentrating on the South makes a big difference in these two states, as well, which are must-win states for both the Democrats and for Bush.

I don't think Kerry's coming from Massachusetts will make that much of a difference to the voters across the country. My experiences in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Illinois don't suggest an instinctive hick-like distrust of them gol'-danged Easterners. I did live in Iowa for a while, but it seems to me that Iowans, while sporting a subtle pride in their being different from Easterners, aren't turned off by one of them if he or she comes off as a square dealer or a basically decent human being. Iowans are not a bunch of stupid, xenophobic hicks. Don't sell them short. Remember: the last time the Democratic presidential candidate was from Massachusetts, the Iowans voted for him.

Marley23
02-07-2004, 02:00 PM
the idea that no Democrat can win the election without winning the South has taken over these campaigns.
I suppose it's because the South is Kerry's most obvious potential weakness. The other two guys are trailing big-time, they're trying to exploit anything they can.

RTFirefly
02-07-2004, 02:57 PM
Oh, my, I quivver before the time homored RTFirefly technique of selectively quoting parts of posts and stringing them together to create a "meaning" that only he devines instead of making a legitimate arguement. And I quiver befor the time-honored Weirddave approach of using phraseology that sounds like it was stolen from an elementary-school recess. If you would bother to invest in a dictionary, you would note that "X is more of a hot button topic than Y" is not equivilant to saying "X is the most important hot button topic of all", except maybe in bizarro RTF world where what people actually post pales in importance to grinding your particular axe. You caught me in a technical contradiction, I admit, An another, apparently. For if I have even caught you in a technical conontradiction, the problem clearly isn't with my dictionary.

But on to the alleged substance of your argument:
but I thought the fact that in the first quote you've posted I was responding to someone who said that I claimed gay marriage was the only issue involved AND the fact that I clarified (the part you neglected to underline) "the deciding topic, or the only thing upon which a decision would be based" would make the destinction clear enough for most rational people, Mea Culpa if I was wrong. Well, you were claiming that it was going to be an issue that would override many more serious and meaningful issues. And why, exactly, was that? Because after sober reflection, people thoughtfully concluded that gay marriage really was more important than the war, the economy, the deficit, health care, and so forth?

Of course not. Gay marriage is high on its opponents' list because it hits them viscerally, rather than rationally. Can't get more 'hot-button' than that.
I wasn't counting on someone ignoring the actual arguement in favor of playing anal retentive grammar policeman. Also, what does "As of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, Kerry is now unelectable in most of the South. Dubya will beat the living fuck out of him on this issue " have to do with the other two quotes?It was your thesis. I stand by the statement, if you feel you can refute it, have at the statement with facts instead of jumping up and down screaming "You're contradicting yourself" rather than adressing, you know, the actual topic.See post #203, where I did exactly that.

Feel free to jump up and down some more. It's good for the circulation.

Mans2004
02-07-2004, 03:35 PM
I truly believe we are starting to see the zenith of Republican power (as their party stands here and now) in this country. They are already showing signs of a disconnect between reality and their view of the world and I think the voters are beginning to wake up to their lies and dirty tricks.

Even some members of, what should be, the Republican party base (religious fanatics and the generally ultra-conservative) are beginning to have their doubts about Bush (and making them public) and with the administrations policies in general, than has ever been seen before. Everything from immigration reform (guest workers) to tax-cuts for the ultra-wealthy (and the resulting deficits as far as the eye can see -- even that hypocritical pompus gasbag Rush Limbaugh has been critical of the Bush Administration on this) has brought about a change in the perception of the current administration.

Now they are, in general, beginning to canabalize themselves. There was a story on drudgereport.com yesterday about Fred Phelps (he of godhatesfags.com), the fundamentalist Baptist preacher from Kansas, applying to put a momument to Matthew Shepherd's "x-number of days in hell" in the city parks of a few cities across the country because they have existing monuments to the Ten Commandments. Now, these cities are pulling those monuments or bracing for a legal fight to keep his from being erected (apparently there's been a court ruling that existing monuments to the Ten Commandments are acceptable - sort of a grandfather clause -- correct me if I'm wrong).

Couple that with the sheer volume of protests leading up to the Iraq War, the "jobless" economic recovery, redistricting being forced down the throats of voters in Texas and Colorado, daily reports of service members being killed in Iraq (we've now reached 500+), not to mention the upcoming Republican Convention being held in NYC within days of the 3rd anniversary of 9/11 leads me to believe this election will be a grand turning point for this country and the two parties in the election.

I predict Kerry will win the nomination in August and choose Wes Clark as his running mate. Who would dare attack Kerry OR Clark on National Security or for being un-patriotic? The Republican's would lose two of their biggest weapons in the election if we have two TRUE war heroes versus an AWOL deserter playing dress-up in a flightsuit and Dick Cheney.

Kerry/Clark in Novermber.

Spoke
02-07-2004, 03:39 PM
Since my party seems bound and determined to nominate Kerry, I can only say "Watch and learn."

(And I do hope the lesson sinks in by 2008.)

SteveEisenberg
02-07-2004, 03:55 PM
I truly believe we are starting to see the zenith of Republican power (as their party stands here and now) in this country. They are already showing signs of a disconnect between reality and their view of the world and I think the voters are beginning to wake up to their lies . . .

an AWOL deserter

With friends like this, Kerry will be sunk. Which is fine with me.

Democracies are characterized by rotation in office. No party can remain in power for all that long because both will equally fight to win the center, so in that sense there is something to use of the word "Zenith" here. However, I think that swing voters will be repelled by these tired desertion charges, will think Bush has been a reasonable wartime president, and will give us Republicans one more election. Look for the Democratic comeback starting in November 2006.

Hated presidents win reelection. Check out Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton. Kerry's supporters are his greatest weakness.

SteveEisenberg
02-07-2004, 03:59 PM
Since my party seems bound and determined to nominate Kerry, I can only say "Watch and learn."

(And I do hope the lesson sinks in by 2008.)

Well-spoke (since I agree.) As I just posted, they may show they have learned as soon as 2006. Actually, what with focus groups and all, both sides are continually learning. As a result the parties are pretty evenly matched.

Marley23
02-07-2004, 04:04 PM
The desertion thing is primary rhetoric, not something you're going to hear daily during the campaign itself. Dean is arguing it should be a big deal, which is one reason I'm pretty sure it won't be. The other candidates aren't making opposition to the war their central issue, so the 'deserter' thing isn't of much importance anyway.

Marley23
02-07-2004, 08:42 PM
I don't know how today's voting affected the delegate count exactly, but Kerry won both states by wide margins and definitely increased his lead. I'm reading that polls currently show him ahead in Maine (where nobody is really campaigning, it seems), and more importantly, Tennessee and Virginia. So I have this question: if Clark or Edwards (or both) don't get a win on Tuesday, what happens? Do they have any kind of chance left? Will they quit? Clark's campaign in particular seems frustrated, see his son's comments that he hoped the General would quit if he didn't win Oklahoma.

John Mace
02-07-2004, 10:49 PM
Who would dare attack Kerry OR Clark on National Security or for being un-patriotic?

Kerry is not going to be called unpatriotic, but his senate voting record on National Defense is not very good. He has voted pretty much straight (Dem) party line on all the key issues during his tenure, including voting against Gulf War I, and several key Defense programs in the 80s, during the Cold War. That will not play well in the campaign. His anti-death penalty stance is another serious weakness, although his recent "conversion" to favoring the death penalty for convicted terrorists sounds very opportunistic.

But I'm looking forward to see how he handles these things. Dukakis was a wimp in this campaign, and I expect Kerry will not follow in those footsteps.

John Mace
02-07-2004, 10:55 PM
I don't know how today's voting affected the delegate count exactly, but Kerry won both states by wide margins and definitely increased his lead.

This is a good site for keeping track of the delegate count. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html)

Evil Captor
02-07-2004, 11:10 PM
But I'm looking forward to see how he handles these things. Dukakis was a wimp in this campaign, and I expect Kerry will not follow in those footsteps.

I sure hope you're right. The only Dem I've seen who speaks and acts like he has balls is Dean.

Marley23
02-08-2004, 12:21 AM
That site seems a bit out-of-date too at the moment. Only gives Kerry 5 delegates from Michigan and 6 from Washington. The NY Times delegate count says that delegates from those two states are not formally awarded until later this year... that or delays in getting the exact tally could explain the difference.

Marley23
02-08-2004, 02:10 AM
Okay, it's been updated now.

Michigan: Kerry 96, Dean 25, Edwards 7, Sharpton 7, Clark 1, Kucinich 0.

In Washington, it was Kerry 53, Dean 36, everybody else: bupkis.

So, counting those (and I guess some new endorsements), here's the way it looks:

Kerry 409, Dean 173, Edwards 116, Clark 82, Sharpton 12, Kucinich 2.

Weirddave
02-08-2004, 02:55 AM
Of course not. Gay marriage is high on its opponents' list because it hits them viscerally, rather than rationally.

Are you honestly naieve enought to believe that it is not visceral feelings that win elections rather than actual substance? You're almost 50 years old, I had credited you with enough intelegence to realize these things by now, sheesh! It sucks, but that's the way the world works IRL.

Bricker
02-08-2004, 06:54 AM
I also agree with you that Kerry's appeal in the South is highly underestimated. While I'm sure Kerry won't sweep the region, I can see him playing well enough to win in Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, Louisiana and possibly Virginia in the general election.

Quiz: when was the last presidential election in which Virginia went Democratic?

RTFirefly
02-08-2004, 09:02 AM
Are you honestly naieve enought to believe that it is not visceral feelings that win elections rather than actual substance? You're almost 50 years old, I had credited you with enough intelegence to realize these things by now, sheesh! It sucks, but that's the way the world works IRL.Two things:

1) I have no idea where you're getting this from what I've posted. Please quote, and be as selective as you like.

2) I'm losing track here of what you're arguing. Is it (a) hot(-button issue) or is it not? Here, you seem to have swung back to the affirmative.

Captain Amazing
02-08-2004, 10:27 AM
Quiz: when was the last presidential election in which Virginia went Democratic?

It was 1964.

Chance the Gardener
02-08-2004, 01:25 PM
Quiz: when was the last presidential election in which Virginia went Democratic?

1964, and before that, 1948. The 1964 win was probably due more to Johnson's landslide and Goldwater's dud of a campaign. Do you have a point, or are we just playing Trivial Pursuit now?

It may seem unlikely, in light of Virginia's having landed in the Republican column in so many elections, that it'll go Democratic in 2004 or any other time soon. And I'll concede that it probably will go Republican—but I'd say the tide is turning in Virginia. The Republicans have won it safely for the past twenty years, but I'd say the Democrats are still in striking distance. What with the demographics of the northern part of the state changing to a more Democratic electorate, as well as the growing population there, I'd say the Democrats have a better chance. They also elected a Democratic governor in 2001, which always helps a party's statewide strategy. Odds still favor the Republicans here, but this state is changing. I count the Old Dominion as potentially vulnerable Red territory, and a possible Democratic pickup in the South. Not as likely to go Democratic as North Carolina or Arkansas, but still potential Democratic territory.

John Mace
02-08-2004, 01:33 PM
The MI/WA results validate my prediction that Dean would gain some momentum and outlast (or outpoll) Edwards. It's funny how Edwards is harping on how Kerry can't win in the South, but Edwards can't seem to win anywher but the South. And that was only SC, to boot.

We should see some big changes after Tues.

Marley23
02-09-2004, 02:57 AM
It's funny how Edwards is harping on how Kerry can't win in the South, but Edwards can't seem to win anywher but the South. And that was only SC, to boot.
Well, you know I agree. :D I'm wondering if Clark and Edwards's decisions to sit out Michigan, Washington and Maine are going to prove to be mistakes like Clark and Lieberman's choices to sit out Iowa. Kerry's managed to widen his lead, pick up easy wins and momentum that actually has him leading them in Virginia and Tennessee, the states they've picked.

RTFirefly
02-09-2004, 02:26 PM
Gay marriage is much more of a hot button for people than vague lies about WMD in distant parts of the world. That would have been my hunch, too, except (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/038/wash/Poll_Bush_slip_in_public_opini:.shtml): Bush's job approval rating dropped 10 points from Jan. 25 through Jan. 31, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey. The tracking poll takes a nightly sample and rolls together two or three nights' findings at a time to produce periodic reports.

Support for the war in Iraq also dipped in that period, from a majority saying the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over, 53 percent, to 46 percent during the last few days of January saying it was worth going to war and 49 percent saying it was not.

The Annenberg study found Bush's approval dipped from 64 percent right after Bush's Jan. 20 State of the Union address to 54 percent in the late-January period. An AP-Ipsos poll found Bush's approval dipped 9 points during January to the high 40s, the same finding as several other polls released at about that time. This was right after David Kay said there weren't any WMDs over there.

Josh Marshall (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.html#002540) makes the point that what was obvious to those of us who've been following the issue closely - that there weren't no WMDs - wasn't so obvious to the bulk of the electorate. They may have wanted to believe the President, but Kay just made it a lot harder.

There's something else that occurs to me: that people are uneasy about how the country's being run, and whether their being BSed, on a whole bunch of issues, but there's no smoking gun that says they've been lied to across the board. But when they think about these things at all, even if they're not paying much attention, they can't convince themselves that things are going well in Iraq, or that the war made sense, or that they're going to be able to keep their jobs, or find a decent job if they don't have one now, or that huge tax cuts or huge deficits make any sense, or that the prescription drug benefit is a real benefit and not just a sop, or that they'll have decent health care themselves.

The reasons for uneasiness are much stronger and deeper than in, say, 1988 or 2000. And I doubt that it can be demagogued away: in 2004, that will look like avoidance more than anything else. My take is that voters want to believe that somebody's minding the store; they want a President who's making sure things are working so that they can pay attention to their own lives, rather than the workings of the nation. You're the ship's captain: you want to talk about gay marriage when the ship is sailing smoothly? People will listen, and it may score you some points. But if you try that when the passengers can see that the ship's sailing through a flock of icebergs, they'll get really, really nervous.

So if Bush & Co. want to make a big issue out of gay marriage, I say bring it on. It'll shore up the base, but it'll lose them the middle - not because they disagree with Bush on gay marriage, but because it will pile on to their growing impression of Bush's insufficiency.

What worries me is the prospect of Bush's pseudo-addressing problems like unemployment, the deficit, health care, the war, etc., in ways that look just real enough to skate him to a narrow victory this year. (He's already pseudo-addressed the war and health care to varying extents, of course, but so far it doesn't seem to be gaining him any traction.)

This doesn't mean Bush will lose, of course. Another thing that could work for the Bush/Rove ticket is throwing enough mud at the Dem nominee so that the electorate wonders if the Dem is up to the job.

But the election's becoming more and more of an even bet all the time.

Bricker, if you're following this, I don't drink Scotch. But I'm open to alternatives.

John Mace
02-09-2004, 06:20 PM
I'm getting pretty sick about hearing Edwards talk about how good he is in "his backyard". Is he running for the presidency of The South? He's starting to sound more and more like he's running for VP. And Clark, with his invocation for voters to put him on "3rd base so he can take it home" needs to realize that he has to get on 1st base before he has a chance at 2nd, much less 3rd.

Unless Kerry is "found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy", he's got it.

E-Sabbath
02-09-2004, 07:00 PM
Well, according to my predictions, which havn't been that inaccurate, Edwards would be running for VP about now.

And Dean's chance is just about over, but he's going to be a powerbroker at the convention. So... yeah, barring a scandal, this one's tied up. I'm interested in Bush being forced to start campaigning early, though.

I think he just might be scared. Not running scared, but scared enough to make a big deal about something he should look presidential and ignoe.

Jonathan Chance
02-09-2004, 08:16 PM
I think he's running a little nervous, too. Again, he's following the primary states making sure he recoups some of the losses from the beating he's getting from the candidates.

Meessa no t'ink he be doin' dat if'n he wassa secure!

John Mace
02-09-2004, 08:23 PM
And what about Gore? Is he now politically dead after backing Dean? He's gotta be regretting that premature ejaculation...

RTFirefly
02-09-2004, 08:50 PM
A few random opinions:

1) Like JC and E-Sabbath said, Bush (or Rove) must be getting a bit nervous, otherwise they wouldn't have trotted Bush out on Meet the Press. The Dems were supposed to be beating up on each other, but instead they've all been beating on Bush. Hard for them to fight too hard amongst themselves, when they don't disagree on very much.

2) Dean won't be any sort of power-broker at the convention. A few hundred delegates won't mean much by then. Dean will lose in Wisconsin, and he's said he'll drop out if he loses there.

3) Edwards should have really tried to win (or at least be a strong second) in Michigan or Washington this past weekend. Kerry hasn't won in the South yet, but Edwards has won only once anywhere. So it'll pretty much be ballgame if Kerry wins both TN and VA tomorrow, which looks pretty likely.

4) JM - it depends on what you mean. Gore's not likely to get another chance to run for President, no matter what: time moves on, the world changes, and somebody else winds up filling your role. So his Dean endorsement - which will have been forgotten by then anyway - won't affect things.

Gore's main Dem role, these days, is as a somewhat youthful older statesman. He's got the freedom to say what he feels needs to be said, and have it taken seriously, without having to worry about how it affects his political future, now that he really doesn't have one in the conventional sense. So he can say things that a candidate might not say, and other Dems can see how people react. That's really not a bad position to be in, assuming he doesn't want to be President.

I'd personally like to see him run for Senate from Tennessee again, one of these years. But I doubt he will.

John Mace
02-09-2004, 09:09 PM
I wasn't clear on what I meant about Gore. Yeah, his chance to run for prez is long gone. But it was a BIG deal when he endorsed Dean. I wonder how much weight his endorsement will mean next time around. Or how much influence he will have in the party. With Clinton still around, he's always going to be playing second fiddle at best.

Marley23
02-10-2004, 12:11 AM
Dean abruptly changed course about Wisconsin, but he still won't win, and he'll be that much more of a non-factor after not competing in two states tomorrow. He's not going to be a power broker even if he stays after Wisconsin. Kerry can win this cleanly, and I think he'll take the drama out of the proceedings tomorrow. After that, Kerry will have almost 3 times as many delegates as Dean does.

Among the things I've read- Clark may quit if he doesn't win tomorrow, which polls say he won't. Also, the Edwards people are apparently annoyed at Dean for deciding to not quit, because the more rivals Kerry has, the more they split the vote between them. I think Clark and Edwards have only hurt themselves by fighting each other over the Southern thing.

Tomorrow, it sounds like Kerry will win Tennessee and Virginia big (I think he's up by about 12 or 14% in each state), which weakens Clark and Edwards' claims that he can't win there and makes them sound sort of unnecessary as the Southern alternatives. He's already got a very big lead in Wisconsin, and two wins tomorrow should only increase it. So unless something really unusual happens, I think the race effectively ends tomorrow.

Jonathan Chance
02-10-2004, 08:25 AM
And that was going to be the JC poll question for the day...

Being a Virginian (for the next 24 hours) I voted on the way in to work today (I was number...SIX!)(No foolin') and I voted for Edwards.

Mostly because I think Kerry has this thing wrapped up and Edwards would make an excellent VP choice for him. So I figured a message vote wouldn't hurt.

Now I move to Ohio tomorrow. If I can I'll vote in that primary, too.

Heh heh heh.

Algernon
02-10-2004, 09:09 AM
...I voted for Edwards. Mostly because I think Kerry has this thing wrapped up and Edwards would make an excellent VP choice for him. So I figured a message vote wouldn't hurt. Hmmm. I've been debating with myself about doing this very thing next week in Wisconsin. I'd like to hear other people's opinion about the wisdom of this action.

Spoke
02-10-2004, 09:16 AM
I believe Edwards will stay in it through Super Tuesday, regardless. He looks at Oklahoma and sees that 60% voted for either him or Clark. He'll probably take a close look at the combined numbers for himself and Clark in TN and VA. If those combined figures are significantly higher than Kerry's, Edwards will definitely stay in, thinking that when Clark is gone he'll be able to pick up most of Clark's voters.

The problem for Edwards is financing. I doubt he has the money to run much of a campaign outside the Southern states (though he is making a stand in Wisconsin), and without a win today he's not likely to get a funding boost. At this point Edwards is just holding on and maybe hoping that some sort of scandal erupts to bring down Kerry. On that outside possibility, he wants to be the last Kerry alternative standing.

ElvisL1ves
02-10-2004, 09:57 AM
Assuming the polls are right and Kerry wins big in Virginia and Tennessee tonight, spoke-, will you be ready to say that he appeals to Southerners too despite the twistable quotes you've insisted are important? If Edwards can't win there, where can he win?

The race will be over tomorrow. The other candidates may keep on for awhile out of sheer stubbornness, or to make rhetorical points, but they'll stop seriously criticizing their nominee and get on board soon after. But it won't matter what they do because not many will be paying attention to them anyway.

Kerry is already spending a fair amount of times predicting the attacks from "the Republican sleaze machine" and promising to fight back. That simple statement of awareness already inoculates him against Dukakisization, and puts the focus of public and press attention when the attacks occur on the attackers.

John, I agree Gore's influence dissipated with Dean's failure, and it will be gone as soon as there's a nominee to become the party's national representative.

Spoke
02-10-2004, 10:52 AM
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]Assuming the polls are right and Kerry wins big in Virginia and Tennessee tonight, spoke-, will you be ready to say that he appeals to Southerners too despite the twistable quotes you've insisted are important? If Edwards can't win there, where can he win?[QUOTE]

Firstly, if Edwards doesn't win TN and VA, it will be because Clark is in the race.

Secondly, it will be no big surprise if Kerry (who has the full bandwagon effect on his side, and has been anointed by the national press) manages a win over Edwards and Clark in the South, since they are splitting their base. (In fact, I predicted as much after the Oklahoma primary. I said that Clark winning Oklahoma and staying in the race might have killed Edwards.)

Do I think Kerry appeals to Southerners? Hell no. He may appeal to a plurality of Democratic primary voters (because of the bandwagon effect and the split of the Edwards/Clark base), but I stand firmly behind my prediction that Kerry cannot win a Southern state come November. (Care for a wager?) Edwards or Clark could.

Jonathan Chance
02-10-2004, 10:55 AM
So are you predicting that Kerry will win...but with less than 50% of the vote?

If he takes 50%+ would you change your analysis?

Spoke
02-10-2004, 11:34 AM
So are you predicting that Kerry will win...but with less than 50% of the vote?

If he takes 50%+ would you change your analysis?

It may change Edwards's perception as to whether to remain in the race. The bandwagon effect may be too much to overcome.

But it would NOT mean Kerry can win in the South in November. Winning even 50% of Democratic primary voters doesn't tell us anything about swing voters. (See: Dukakis, Michael.)

You can expect Kerry's "mistake of looking South" comment to played more or less on a continuous loop down here come general election time. That quote will not disappear from the Southern consciousness. In fact, looking at my copy of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (a Democratic paper, BTW), the quote is on the front page today, in the following context:

In a larger sense, Kerry and the Democratic Party are competing against a perception they don't really care about the South, once the most dependable Democratic section of the country but recently voting Republican in presidential elections.

Adding to that impression was Kerry's own statement in a January campaign appearance at Dartmouth College that it would be a "mistake" to think he can't win without the support of the South.

The Atlanta paper did Kerry the favor of redacting his quote to make it less abrasive. You can bet that Republican outlets won't do him the same favor. Either way, the remark will resonate down here when the Republicans start spending money to burn it into the voter psyche.

I am still willing to make a friendly wager that Kerry won't win a Southern state in November. Any takers?

Spoke
02-10-2004, 11:44 AM
Here's a link to that Atlanta article. (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/election/0204nation/10dems.html)

It's a good (and important) read for Democrats outside the South trying to figure out what's going on with the party down here.

BobLibDem
02-10-2004, 12:12 PM
spoke, I will bet you a shiny new Michigan quarter that Kerry takes at least one southern state. Having read your cite, I'm left wondering: what exactly do Southerners want the Democrats to do? On one hand you've got a guy who has taken a surplus and turned it into record deficits, added $2.3 TRILLION to the national debt, lost 2.2 million jobs, lied to us to justify starting a war, and coerced the Congress into passing the Patriot Act. On the other hand, you've got a guy who said it would be a mistake to think that you can't win without the South. Is the Southern sense of honor that fragile that you can't get over such an inconsequential statement? So if you're in Kerry's shoes, what exactly do you do to start a "southern strategy"?

I think Kerry can win without any southern states. Take the 2000 Gore-Bush split of states from the John Edwards site's interactive map. (http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/) Bush starts with a 278-260 margin. Given the woeful state of the industrial Midwest, turn Ohio blue. Turn Missouri blue and you've got Kerry at 291-247. Now add an honest election in Florida with some intensive voter education and you've got Kerry at 318-220. Now I think Kerry has a real chance to turn over Louisiana and West Virginia, now we've got a rout at 332-206. Kerry will compete well in the south as well as all around the country. Bush has done what no Democrat could do, namely unify the Democratic party. Kerry wins in a rout.

ElvisL1ves
02-10-2004, 12:32 PM
spoke-, if you're really saying (as you seem to) that Kerry's support in the South is all mindless bandwagon-effect and opposition-splitting, but that all caring and thoughtful southerners will only vote for another Southerner, then it's no wonder you've flown into so much turbulence here. The assertion you make that Clark is as strongly identifiable as a Southerner as Edwards is also pretty damn dubious. The same numbers could also be taken to mean that southern Democrats put the same issues at the tops of their lists as do Democrats in the other parts of the country. Did Dean and Lieberman lose New Hampshire because they were splitting the New England vote with Kerry? C'mon now, the war has been over for a long time now.

It may well be that Kerry won't win a single state in the South, as you suggest, but it wouldn't be because of a single quote instead of simple party affiliation and the feeling among the dominant conservatives there that Bush is still a less-bad choice. What attitude similar to the one you're intent upon reading into Kerry was evident in any of the other recent Democratic candidates who also had trouble winning there? Time to set it aside, pal.

I'll jump in with Jonathan and ask you to confirm that you think Kerry will take less than 50% in TN or VA, or even less than the total of Edwards and Clark. It's possible, sure, but I hope you're not betting the plantation on it.

Spoke
02-10-2004, 01:28 PM
It may well be that Kerry won't win a single state in the South, as you suggest, but it wouldn't be because of a single quote instead of simple party affiliation and the feeling among the dominant conservatives there that Bush is still a less-bad choice.

You need to read the Atlanta Journal article. Conservatives are not so dominant here as you think. The South is moderate. Clinton and Carter won Southern states. Georgia has a Democratic House, and until recently, a Democratic Governor. You'll find Democratic governors and senators from several Southern states.

What attitude similar to the one you're intent upon reading into Kerry was evident in any of the other recent Democratic candidates who also had trouble winning there?

Gore had the same attitude. He also wrote off the South and didn't campaign here. He only jumped into Florida with a last-minute, slap-dash campaign when he decided it wasn't a lost cause after all. The attitude cost him, and it will cost Kerry.
Time to set it aside, pal.

Set what aside? I'm telling those with ears to hear that Kerry can't win in the South because of his too-liberal record, which won't play with moderates, and which will only reinforce the "Massachusetts liberal" stereotype. To make that pre-existing handicap worse, he stupidly gave his opposition a perfect sound bite to use against him down here.

It is a mistake for my party to nominate a candidate who has effectively ceded the South. Southern states are winnable by a Democratic candidate. (See: Clinton, Bill). Kerry is not the candidate for the job. Can the election be won without the South? Maybe. I guess we'll find out. I do know it's a much tougher job if the party cedes the region.

I'll probably hold my nose and vote for the big stiff if (as appears likely) he gets nominated. But I harbor no illusions that it will do any good here.

Spoke
02-10-2004, 02:12 PM
Ah yes, and ElvisL1ves, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am hung up on the Civil War, or have something against Northerners generally. Not so. In fact, I would be quite content with a Howard Dean nomination. He doesn't have Kerry's too-liberal record, and might actually play down here in a general election. Not gonna happen, though. He got dismantled by the Powers That Be.

Marley23
02-10-2004, 02:17 PM
[Dean] might actually play down here in a general election.
Yeah, that comment about Confederate flags and pickup trucks probably won him lots of supporters.

Not gonna happen, though. He got dismantled by the Powers That Be.
"The Powers That Be" = Kerry, Edwards and his own mouth, plus lame media coverage.

I don't think you've ever given a real reason that a Southern VP nom. wouldn't help Kerry in the South, but at this point it's hardly even worth arguing about. Clark and Edwards did help to beat themselves, although I'm not convinced either one would've beaten Kerry anyway. Did you see that Carol Moseley Braun beat Clark in Michigan?