 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Here's Tennessee which was won by 4.65% Clinton, about the same as Louisiana, and Wisconsin Clinton won by 4.35%, yet the site does not put Wisconsin in the Bush column and puts Louisiana, where Bush lost by 4.6 percent, and gives Bush Maine, which Bush lost by 8.77%.
I don't really understand their analysis here. |
Perhaps because Bush didn't win Wisconsin in 1988, and the Democrats have carried it in every election since. Didn't you read the methodology?
Why do you think Bush Sr. would pick up a state he didn't win before, when he was getting an electoral beat down in 1992 across the map?
So Wisconsin's 11-vote swing still gives Clinton the victory, even with your flawed analysis.
Man, you've been dealing the self-pwnage in every thread lately. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
I'll stop you right there. If 1/3 of Perot's voters stay home, then the percentages of the total voters in the race changes entirely. You didn't bother to take that into account, did you?
That's a lot of work to do and yet fail to take this into consideration.
|
Yes, that is true, however, it has no bearing on the relative percentages of Democrats and Republicans. What I am interested is in the percentage of Perot's voters that actually would affect the relative percentages, which are the ones who would vote democrat or republican.
Also, if you go through what I wrote, it makes no sense to recalculate the percentages. In order to overcome a deficit of 5 % of the overall vote, Bush needs to get 5% of the original total, not 5% of the smaller pool.
quote:
I guarantee you, there's little chance Bush would beat Clinton in a 2008 face-off. On top of the fact that the country has immense Bush fatigue right now, the nostalgia for the rolling good times of the 90s will prompt many to vote for Clinton, especially when comparing them to the past 8 years they've just undergone.
|
Perhaps so, however, the question at hand was whether Bush Sr. could have beaten Bill Clinton if Perot did not run. That was the whole point of running the numbers.
Secondly, if Clinton could not beat Bush in a straight up election, who is to say that he would have beat Dubya in 2004?
As for 2008, it really doesn't matter. Bush can't run, unless a constitutional amendment passes, and neither could Clinton. Assuming both can run, then there is really no reason why anything from 1992 pertains to 2008, including the 'infinitely better charisma of Clinton.'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
1. Why do any of you actually argue with Ben's statements? Just sit back and laugh at his self-imposed ignorance.
|
quote:
2. That Bush is so unpopular and that Arnold is also should bge important news to Republicans, since they still do have a significant number of congress seats in the State, and every single vote counts in the battle to keep the House.
|
I find that interesting in itself, that both Bush and Arnold would be seen as unpopular by Californians. My question to the Californians, is whether they have a candidate they would prefer over Arnold? That's the real question here.
quote:
If Bush's numbers do not climb significantly before Nov. 2006, the Republicans will have a tought time keeping Congress.
|
Nah, I think they will be just fine. You haven't done a poll comparing the popularity of the Democrat congressmen to the Republican congressmen. Just because Bush is seen as unpopular, doesn't mean his party is also seen that way.
quote:
That said, Bush has plenty of possible October surprises, and if some important AQ leader gets caught, expect the media to laud Bush as the great conquering Caesar.
|
Like they did when he caught Osama in October of 2004? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
And you are follish enough about US geography to think that if half his supporters live in urban areas that concentrates them in NY, Cali, AND Massachussets?
|
First off, about 1/6th of his supporters. You've chopped off a 1/3rd of his overall support. You've chopped out half the remainder, and then half of the democratic support is based in NY, Cali and Massachusetts.
Secondly, if you look at pictures on a county by county basis, the overall democratic party support is clustered in urban areas, so it seems a reasonable assumption to conclude that the democratic leaning supporters of Perot would also be clustered in urban areas.
Thirdly, yes, there are urban areas outside of New York and California, but the most democratic urban areas are found in New York, California and Massachusetts. If I wanted to do a more accurate assessment, on a state by state basis, I would suspect the numbers would not change greatly. Yes, I know this distorts the picture, but the more difficult question to answer is how much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I find that interesting in itself, that both Bush and Arnold would be seen as unpopular by Californians. My question to the Californians, is whether they have a candidate they would prefer over Arnold? That's the real question here.
|
Do you read?
CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS are what are coming up, the point being the deep unpopularity of the Governor and the President will possibly hurt Congressional republican challengers and incumbents.
 Get a clue.
Besides, next governor's race, if either of the current Senators ran for the office, they would, unless his popularity recovers significantly, easily crush Ahnold.
quote:
Nah, I think they will be just fine. You haven't done a poll comparing the popularity of the Democrat congressmen to the Republican congressmen. Just because Bush is seen as unpopular, doesn't mean his party is also seen that way. |
Its gunny watching somoene with so little knowledge trying to make predictions.
The vast Mayority of presidents see their party lose seats in mid-term elections- the more unpopular the presidents numbers, or the greater the disquiet with the party in power, the worse it is for the party in control. Disfavour with the Congress has reach levels not seen since 1994, the year the Democrats, then in power, got swept out. No one expects that kind of switch, but the Republican lead today is smaller than the Democratic lead in '94 in the House.
Now, the last two mid-term elections were flukes: In '98 the Democrats gained thanks to public displeasure at the impeachment of Clinton, and in 2002 Bush carried many republicans on the back of the Iraq war fever.
Barring something special, if the presidents and Congresses numbers remain this low, it will be a nasty November for the House Leadership.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
First off, about 1/6th of his supporters. You've chopped off a 1/3rd of his overall support. You've chopped out half the remainder, and then half of the democratic support is based in NY, Cali and Massachusetts. |
Which bellies a massive amount of ginorance on your part as to where the significant urban centers in the US are.
quote:
Secondly, if you look at pictures on a county by county basis, the overall democratic party support is clustered in urban areas, so it seems a reasonable assumption to conclude that the democratic leaning supporters of Perot would also be clustered in urban areas. |
Only part of your "analysis that makes a damn lick of sense.
quote:
Thirdly, yes, there are urban areas outside of New York and California, but the most democratic urban areas are found in New York, California and Massachusetts. If I wanted to do a more accurate assessment, on a state by state basis, I would suspect the numbers would not change greatly. Yes, I know this distorts the picture, but the more difficult question to answer is how much. |
Of course, your ignorance leads you to ignore Pennsylvania, Illinois, Florida, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, so forth an so on, all of which have large, dmeocratic leaning urban areas. By simple demographics that Perot support would spread out just the same as general dmeocratic support in Urban areas does, according to your own methadology, meaning you failed to account for such Cities as Miami, Philadelphia and Pittsburg, Chicago, Milwakee and Madison, Seattle, Portland, Detroit, so forth and so on.
If you think I, as a Political Science graduate will buy your hokey "analysis", then you must be on some drug.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What congress numbers? |
Congress has a approval rating of about 39% currently. Google it, it comes up fast.
quote:
First of all, popularity is relative. Bush only has to have relative popularity in comparison with an opponent. |
What matters here, specially sincee he is a lame duck, is his popularity as the leader of the Republicans nationwide, making his fortunes connected to those of other elected Republicans, just as it was in 2002 and 2004. If Republicans see his agenda is unpopular, they have to almost run against him, whcih is hard, specially since your opponent from the other party will invariably be EVEN MORE against him.
quote:
Secondly, and I said this point, Bush's popularity does not necessarily indicate the popularity of the Republican party. |
If general support is low for both the President and the Congress and both branches are under the same party, its simple enough to understand there is deep unhappiness with those in office.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Congress has a approval rating of about 39% currently. Google it, it comes up fast.
|
Ah, okay. Making me do your work for you then, eh? If it's important, cite it.
quote:
What matters here, specially sincee he is a lame duck, is his popularity as the leader of the Republicans nationwide, making his fortunes connected to those of other elected Republicans, just as it was in 2002 and 2004. If Republicans see his agenda is unpopular, they have to almost run against him, whcih is hard, specially since your opponent from the other party will invariably be EVEN MORE against him.
|
Granted, but the question becomes what part of Bush's agenda is unpopular? If you look at things like the war in Iraq, as the source of much of the unpopularity, then this will change once the war is over.
Secondly, disapproval for Bush is hardly approval for the Democrats, and Congress's overall approval ratings cannot be solely attributed to the Republicans. First off, I suspect that a great deal of the disapproval comes from the filibustering of the judicial nominees.
quote:
If general support is low for both the President and the Congress and both branches are under the same party, its simple enough to understand there is deep unhappiness with those in office.
|
Is the disapproval of the congress as a whole directed at the republicans or the democrats?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaguar
Ooh, so this means that Republicans in Congress will get thrown out by California voters!
Oh, wait, California doesn't have Republicans in Congress.
 |
Tell that to:
Christopher Cox, R, 48th District
John Doolittle, R, 4th
David Dreier, R, 26th
Darrell Issa, R, 49th
Howard McKeon, R, 25th
Wally Herger, R, 2nd
Richard Pombo, R, 11th
George Radanovich, R, 19th
Dana Rohrabacher, R, 46th
Ed Royce, R, 40th
Devin Nunes, R, 21st
Dan Lungren, R, 3rd
Duncan Hunter, R, 52nd
Jerry Lewis, R, 41st
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ah, okay. Making me do your work for you then, eh? If it's important, cite it. |
Man, are you lazy.
http://www.pollingreport.com/job.htm
and http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm
quote:
Granted, but the question becomes what part of Bush's agenda is unpopular? If you look at things like the war in Iraq, as the source of much of the unpopularity, then this will change once the war is over. |
The war will not be over by November 2006, which makes it even worse for republicans.
Bush;s Social Security plans have been collapsing in popularity since the day he started to sell them. That is a GIANT albatross on the neck of republicans.
Then there is Bush;s position on Stem Cells.
quote:
Secondly, disapproval for Bush is hardly approval for the Democrats, and Congress's overall approval ratings cannot be solely attributed to the Republicans. First off, I suspect that a great deal of the disapproval comes from the filibustering of the judicial nominees. |
The Party in control gets the blame- this is a startegy Republicans under Gingrich used before '94, by fighting a nasty little war to tie up things.
That said, congressional Democrats are no more popular then Republicans, and until lately, were even less popular. That hurts incumbents, NOT challangers, Given there are more republican incumbents than Democrats, this is a bigger problem for the Republicans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Tell that to:
Christopher Cox, R, 48th District
John Doolittle, R, 4th
David Dreier, R, 26th
Darrell Issa, R, 49th
Howard McKeon, R, 25th
Wally Herger, R, 2nd
Richard Pombo, R, 11th
George Radanovich, R, 19th
Dana Rohrabacher, R, 46th
Ed Royce, R, 40th
Devin Nunes, R, 21st
Dan Lungren, R, 3rd
Duncan Hunter, R, 52nd
Jerry Lewis, R, 41st |
That's one of every four representatives. 34% doesn't look so bad with that in mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaguar
Basically, the first election I was politically aware for was 2000. Every year since then, I have called that the Democrats will get their asses kicked, and I have always been right. |
Wow, three elections. A regular modern nostradamus
quote:
I think this is the end of the Republican steamroller, though. Certainly in the House, this is the best they will get. They have a long shot at sixty seats in the Senate, though. |
They have a very unlikely shot at 60 senators. They will be lucky if they add two, I would expect them to lose a couple, since the Democrats coming up are safer than some of the Republicans, like Santorum.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2005 02:42
@ thread
then
|