»
Discussion
»
pipTalk Lounge
»
2004 Election Predictions
| pipTalk Lounge |
|
2004 Election Predictions |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 OK, now's the time to make your electoral/popular vote predictions! This is a Lounge thread as I want this to be a family-friendly election discussion thread, so keep political talk to a general-friendly tone (not Alley tone, LOL! ) and make your predictions, and if you want provide an analysis or theory why.My Predictions: *****Electoral***** Kerry 311, Bush 227 *****Popular Vote***** Kerry 51.2%, Bush 47.4%, Nader .8%, Badnarik & others .6% *****My Case***** 1) New voter registration has favored Democrats over Republicans. In Iowa alone, it is said seven times as many new Democrats have been registered than Republicans, which this enthusiasm I believe will keep Iowa a blue state. Similar scenarios have occurred in Wisconsin, Colorado, Ohio and Florida. 2) The Nader factor is razor-thin in comparison to 2000. There's undoubtedly still a factor, but about 2/3 to 3/4 of Naderites including Winona LaDuke, Nader's running mate in 1996 and 2000, have reasoned this is a two-way race and there is widespread passion to get Bush out of office so only the most fervent Naderites who still resent what Clinton did as president that lost their faith in the Democratic Party have kept their distance. 3) The polls can't measure passion. All political analysts have agreed when visiting college campuses, they have never seen such political involvement like this, never so many educated young men and women politically that spend hours a week canvassing and running phone banks. Polls have shown Kerry having a huge advantage over both young voters ("Generation E") and college students with margin leads of as much as 20 points. I agree with Joe Trippi that they can decide this election. 4) Historically, an incumbent who can't consistently touch 50% of the vote in polls is in an uncomfortable position and often in trouble. Luckily for Bush, Kerry also hasn't consistently reached 50%, but in any case it's a grim outlook for Bush: 5) Compare the latest series of polls to those of 2000 around the same time: ************************************************** Opinion Dynamics/Fox News (Oct. 29-30) Kerry 47%, Bush 45%, Nader 1% Zogby/Reuters (Oct. 28-30) Kerry 48%, Bush 48%, Nader 1% ABC/ABC (Oct. 27-30) Bush 49%, Kerry 48%, Nader 1% PSRAI/Pew (Oct. 27-30) Kerry 46%, Bush 45%, Nader 1% Gallup/CNN/USA Today (Oct. 29-31) Bush 49%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1% Hart/McInturff/NBC/WSJ (Oct. 29-31) Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1% CBS-NYT/CBS-NYT (Oct. 28-30) Bush 49%, Kerry 46%, Nader 1% Greenberg(Oct. 29-30) Kerry 48%, Bush 47%, Nader 0% American Research Grp (Oct. 28-30) Kerry 48%, Bush 48%, Nader 1% PSRAI/Newsweek (Oct. 27-29) Bush 48%, Kerry 44%, Nader 1% Compare to 2000: ABC/ABC (Nov. 3-5) Bush 48%, Gore 45%, Nader 3% American Viewpoint (R) (Oct. 18-22) Bush 42%, Gore 40%, Nader 5% CBS News/CBS (Nov. 4-6) Gore 45%, Bush 44%, Nader 4% CBS-NYT/CBS-NYT (Nov. 1-4) Bush 47%, Gore 42%, Nader 5% Gallup CNN/USA Today (Nov. 5-6) Bush 48%, Gore 46%, Nader 4% Harris (Nov. 3-5) Gore 47%, Bush 47%, Nader 5% Hart (D)/Teeter (R)/NBC/WSJ (Nov. 3-5) Bush 47%, Gore 44%, Nader 3% Marist College (Nov. 1-2) Bush 49%, Gore 44%, Nader 2% Opinion Dynamics/Fox (Nov. 1-2) Gore 43%, Bush 43%, Nader 3% Princeton Survey/Pew (Nov. 2-5) Bush 49%, Gore 47%, Nader 4% Princeton Survey/Newsweek (Oct. 31-Nov. 2) Bush 45%, Gore 43%, Nader 5% Princeton Survey/Bloomberg (Oct. 23-29) Bush 46%, Gore 43%, Nader 5% Wirthline (R) (Oct. 20-23) Bush 47%, Gore 43%, Nader 4% Yankelovich Time/CNN (Oct. 25-26) Bush 49%, Gore 43%, Nader 3% Zogby Reuters (Nov. 4-6) Gore 48%, Bush 46%, Nader 5% ************************************************** Though a majority of 2000 polls showed Bush ahead, and projected to win the popular vote as well, Gore won the popular vote by 0.5%. Not only are the margins closer now in comparison to 2000, but there's far more people anticipated to vote this time in comparison to 2000, and historically, larger turnouts benefit Democrats, making it seem all but certain Kerry will win the popular vote with the electoral more of a mystery. ************************************************** . . . Of course...that's just one theory. I'll be happy to hear your predictions as well! Love, Noah Eaton "You'll find something that's enough to keep you But if the bright lights don't receive you You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20 |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
S Arthur Grey Senior Member
since 2001-03-19
Posts 719woven by a poet's loom |
WOW Thanks for all the numbers. Very interesting, but I would have no defendable basis for predicting outcomes other than to cite the likelyhood of a larger, younger and more passionate, turnout. I think that favors the Dems. I'm not sure that I want to follow this tonight, but will probably get sucked into it as usual. sag |
||
|
GG Member Elite
since 2002-12-03
Posts 3532Lost in thought |
I don't have any predictions, but I did think this was a bit interesting. So I'll share... Walking around my highschool you definitely get the feel that the people want Kerry. More then the feel, really: it's screamed into your ear, debated, and analyzed. Kids pass out flyers and whatnot. My class ran a mock election there today. Anyone who wanted could vote. We seperated ballots between grades and were careful to have only the ones who signed up fill out a ballot. No cheating. At the end we counted and recounted (actually mostly I counted and recounted. It was a longgg day) and the winner was Bush. No contest, even... he won by quite a bit in every grade. The gap was a bit less with the seniors, though (the ones who actually could vote). Anyway, it surprised me. We had two write-ins for Chuck Norris... I think those kids knew what they were talking about  Always, Alyssa He was a man of sorrows ...I am a girl of tears. |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Well I have my own theory. Seems you have a record turn out of voters, so that tells me someone out there wants a change |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Well so much for that theory  I am lost for words. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I'm glad Kerry isn't conceding, if you look at the numbers , it's still too close to call it untill all the absentee ballots are in. This has been a long contentuous fight, so give it a few more days if necessary, don't be so quick to jump on the 'done-deal' bandwagon. And IF Bush actually won? It's by such a slim number if you consider the total number of voters, I'd say it ISB'T a clear mandate for his policies. I's sure be a lot more impressed if ANY candidate had closer to 60% of the vote...that would really mean a clear mandate from a majority. Sadly, we always seem to accept that a 1 or 2% lead is somehow significant.  If I were running, I'd want a much bigger gap before thinking I had it in the bag, or that I'd been given a clear mandate by the American public. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Well, if Senator Kerry is able to win Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin, that will give him 269 electoral votes to President Bush's 269. This will be the second time in American Presidential history to have happened. The first electoral tie was between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr in 1800. The tie was resolved in the House of Representatives, with Jefferson as President and Burr as Vice President. And if this election results in a tie, it will again go to the House of Representatives, with 200 Democrats, 1 Independant, and 229 Republicans, with 5 seats still up for grabs. |
||
|
Chanson Senior Member
since 2000-08-19
Posts 1559Up Creek w/Out Paddle |
I predict Kerry will concede to Bush today. |
||
|
Soleil Noir Senior Member
since 2001-12-19
Posts 688USA |
I believe that is happening, now. |
||
|
Kaoru
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892where the wild flowers grow |
Didn't you guys know that political discussion belongs in the Alley? lol  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
More people voted for Bush than any president in history. It made him the first president to claim a majority since 1988 when his father won 53 percent against Democrat Michael Dukakis. He won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. Not impressed, Kacey? Ok, that's your right. Enough people are... |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
The election is over, but just to set some numbers out here: GW Bush Jr won 279, maybe a few more electoral votes in this election. In 2000, it was 271. Here are some other electoral vote stats: 1988 GW Bush Sr 426 1984 Reagan, 525 1980 Reagan 489 1972 Nixon 520 1964 Johnson 486 1956 'Ike' 457 1952 'Ike' 442 1944 FDR 432 1940 FDR 449 1936 FDR 523 1932 FDR 472 1928 Hoover 444 1920 Harding 404 1912 Wilson 435 Have we changed the way these votes are tallied, have I been asleep for how the electoral college numbers are calculated? Why is everyone saying today the GW Jr won 'by more than anyone has ever won?' I am curious. I am not the number one history student, but have been around since "Ike" was elected. Seriously, I accept the election results, and we need to move forward now, but I'd really like some kind of clarification on this one point in case these previously posted 'historic' electoral numbers were wrong. Mike? And of course, I already know my constitutional rights, thank you.  BTW, since the population numbers have changed, I think we have to look at percentages, not actual numbers, of the total population as well as registered voter numbers. Statistics can and are constantly tweaked, so the numbers don't mean a helluva lot, but in the end, whomever wins the magic number of electoral votes IS the President, by whatever percentage. My point is, I think if you do the stats, Reagan and Roosevelt had greater popular vote totals. But it's all moot now, ain't it? I'm glad we can set this one aside, and rest a few months before we get bombarded with 2008 ads. Can't wait.  [This message has been edited by Midnitesun (11-04-2004 12:30 AM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I suspect what you are hearing is the president received more votes than anyone has ever received which is primarily due to the increase in population. Percentage wise as to eligible voters, I would suspect we did not approach 68, but I could be wrong. The last time a president has won over fifty per cent of the popular vote was 1998 with Bush I. That last time a Democratic president won with fifty per cent of the vote was President Carter in the wake of the Watergate debacle. I believe you would have to go back to Johnson/Goldwater before that to get a fifty per cent + vote. In the last half century, Carter and Johnson would be the only democrats that won with fifty per cent + of the vote. Kennedy won with a plurality nationwide less than exists in the State of Ohio in this election alone. Thank goodness Mayor Daly of Chicago was able to give Kennedy a plurality of 450,000 votes, because if the voting in Chicago even came close to the percentages elsewhere, Kennedy would have lost. But that is ancient history. The bottom line is that with the nation pretty evenly divided as far as party lines go, any victory over fifty per cent is fairly substantial, especially when you figure in the coattail effect. From a historical persepective, the victory clearly is not a landslide victory, but it would be hard to classify it as any but a solid victory. Hopefully that clears it up a little for you. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Kacey, I can't wait, either. Think of the fun we're gonna have with Hillary!! |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Thanks, tim, I already had that figured out, as I have the census data all the way back to 1917, and the vote counts all the way back to 1872. Though I hate math, I have this thing about statistics ever since college biostatistics course. When you quote numbers and stats, they need to be accurate, other wise it's just more hype and fluff. Thanks for your comment on this. In the long run, it doesn't matter so much. I still say it's sad that the country is always so divided. I'd much prefer closer to a landside victory for either side, and less fighting within the halls of government. I'm not saying I prefer everyone to think/act the same, but we'd get a lot further on the road to peace and prosperity if we weren't always split nearly down the middle. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
I'm hoping maybe Obama? but a liberal female would do fine |
||
|
GG Member Elite
since 2002-12-03
Posts 3532Lost in thought |
2008? AHH! Just shoot me now... But I will be able to vote by then!! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By the way, to not have you think I made figures up, here's the link from AP where it was reported today.. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041104/ap_on_el_pr/eln_election_rdp Obama might make a formidable participant! |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Just goes to prove you have to do your own research, not count on what the media monsters throw out, hoping you'll buy it hook-line-and-sinker. Personally, I'm taking a break from the political arena for a while, at least until January.  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
