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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
