So Bush will lose, but will continue on as if he had a mandate?
In July, 1984, a Newsweek poll put Walter Mondale ahead of Ronald Reagan by two percent & In July, 1988, a Newsweek poll put Michael Dukakis ahead of George H.W. Bush by an astounding seventeen points.
Current Offshore Lines:
Republican Party to win US Presidential Race (Updated: Thu Aug 19 09:55)
Cite
Sportingbet Oz (NT) 9/10
Sports Acumen (ACT) 9/10
Pinnacle (C’Bean) 22/25
Ladbrokes (UK) 5/6
Bet365 (UK) 5/6
Bet365 (USA) 5/6
CanBet (UK) 5/6
GameBookers (UK) 4/5
VIPSports (C’Bean) 71/100
I remember when the poll came out showing Mondale even with Reagan. Even at the time it felt momentary and illusory.
Dukakis, OTOH, really could have won, but let himself get hammered by a lot of superficial crap. It’s clear that Kerry’s learned from that - his rope-a-dope has been truly impressive this year. Bush keeps throwing sleaze at him, it keeps on being of limited effectiveness, and Kerry keeps on leading.
And I think the public is catching on to the fact that Bush has nothing to sell except, “Look at how awful John Kerry is.”
Current Offshore Lines:
Republican Party to win US Presidential Race (Updated: Thu Aug 19 09:55)
Cite
Sportingbet Oz (NT) 9/10
Sports Acumen (ACT) 9/10
Pinnacle (C’Bean) 22/25
Ladbrokes (UK) 5/6
Bet365 (UK) 5/6
Bet365 (USA) 5/6
CanBet (UK) 5/6
GameBookers (UK) 4/5
VIPSports (C’Bean) 71/100
[/QUOTE]
When cut-and-pasting goes bad…
…in other news, I’m still waiting to hear from Sam Stone to find out if he’s serious about that 53%.
What say you, Sam? Are you as sure that Bush will get 53% as I am that Kerry will get 53%?
Quick question from an outsider: is there a specific limit or percentage over which an election victory is judged to have been a landslide?
If so, what is it? (in both percentage of overall vote and amount of Electoral vote, please, if possible). Thanks.
Of course, a quick re-reading of the OP gives me this:
“For our purposes call … an EV landslide a victory of 100 EV or more.”
D’oh! Is this a fairly standard, accepted level of ‘landslide’?
Can anyone name one state that went for Gore in 2000 that might flip over to Bush in 2004? I’m seeing polls showing Minnesota and Wisconsin and Iowa as possibles, but I can’t bring myself to believe Bush will win one of them. On the other hand, Kerry has a good chance to take Ohio and Florida.
I’m sure this has been linked to numerous times in GD, but in case there is someone who hasn’t seen it yet, here is an article from the Washington Monthly that argues that this will be a Kerry landslide election. The article is from May 2004.
Here are the electoral results from all the Presidential elections since 1944, where the incumbent was running. Note that in some of these cases, the incumbent had taken over as President without being directly elected as President(Truman, Johnson, Ford).
(for ease of reading, the incumbent is blue)
1944 Roosevelt over Dewey, 432-99
1948 Truman over Dewey, 303-189
1956 Eisenhower over Stevenson, 457-73
1964 Johnson over Goldwater, 486-52
1972 Nixon over McGovern, 520-17 sob
1976 Carter over Ford, 297-240
1980 Reagan over Carter, 489-49
1984 Reagan over Mondale, 525-13
1992 Clinton over Bush,370-168
1996 Clinton over Dole, 378-160
The only incumbent election, win or lose, that was not decided by over 100 electoral votes was in 1976.
It is interesting to note that in the last 30 years, the incumbent has lost the election more often than he has won. I’m hoping (but not betting) that history repeats itself this election.
Summer polls are not normally worth much, but this time the polls are showing that an unusually large number of people have already made up their minds and those people are unusually firm in their convictions.
In this light I expect little bounce for Bush after his convention, just as Kerry got little bounce from his.
The debates will change few people’s minds as most people are already decided. They will provide the public to see Kerry’s height advantage up close for the first time. Watch for the Bush team to try to keep the candidates separated as much as possible in the debates.
I expect the electoral vote will go for Kerry by a margin of around 100 (I don’t think that qualifies as a landslide, though). The electoral map just doesn’t look good for Bush. He has to win in FL, OH, and MO or it’s game over. He looks closer in the popular vote, but that is based upon staggering leads he has amassed in small states. He has a 45-point lead in Utah, for instance.
Bottom line: Bush will get about the same number of votes he got in 2000. Kerry will benefit from a larger than normal voter turnout, Nader will get about half as many votes as he did in 2000. Kerry will be sworn in in January.
Of course, extraordinary events could change this, but it is hard to know how much or in what direction.
Bush wins.
Rolling out a pseudopatriotic propaganda barrage beginning at the Republican convention and continuing to shell Kerry hard for the next couple of months where he is most vulnerable-trying to out-Republican the Republicans.
Karl Rove has all his artillery in place by now.
Remember, Clinton never got a majority of the votes. He got 43% in '92 and 49% in '96.
Bush will win, very narrowly.
This is not based on a scientific formula–just betting that Kerry lost the race when he mentioned Jewish ancestors.
Relevence?
[http://www.iht.com/articles/533844.html]Shhhhhhhhhh!
Putting trends aside, using the results you posted and doubling the time-frame changes the results dramatically:
From a 40% incumbent re-election rate in the last 30 years.
To a 70% incumbent re-election rate in the last 60 years.
Actually, if the elections were tomorrow, you’d have one hell of a lot of confused people and not a lot of votes to count…
:smack:
I’m thinking his artillery just lost some of its punch.
The Swift Boat Liars have now been clearly unmasked as such. I think the public’s going to start realizing that Bush’s just been trying to throw as much slime at Kerry as he can, hoping some of it would stick, because he’s got nothing of his own to offer.
There is a legitimate argument that my proffered bet is simply irrelevant, rather than a good or bad bet.
I still kinda like it. And if you think it’s irrelevant, you can always bet against me, knowing it’s meaningless.
Really? Most of the press seem to be ignoring them, not disproving them.
Kerry by 10 electoral votes or less.
Bush will bounce to a 3-4% lead after the convention, but Kerry will recover that in the debates, just so long as he doesn’t watch the Saturday night Live parodies.
Quite possibly Kerry will take the electoral votes but lose the popular vote. And how sweet would that be?
RTFirefly: Sorry, didn’t get back to this thread for now. Sure, I’ll take the action. If Bush wins by 53% or more, you owe me $US50. If Kerry wins by 53% or greater, I owe you $US50. If neither of them win by that much of a margin, it’s a wash. Deal?