Landslide 2004....

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by g5man, Nov 13, 2003.

  1. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #1
    November 13, 2003, 8:29 a.m.
    Red America
    How Bush will likely beat his 537-vote "landslide."

    There's been a lot of talk about recent studies showing a decline in the percentage of American voters who identify themselves as Democrats.

    Last summer, pollster Mark Penn found that just 32 percent of voters called themselves Democrats, which led Penn to conclude that, at least on the party-ID issue, "the Democratic party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal."

    Now a new study by the Pew Research Center pegs the Democratic number at 31 percent, versus 30 percent who call themselves Republicans.

    That's very bad news — if you're a Democrat — but what does it actually mean?

    Just who are those voters who have switched party affiliation? And perhaps more important, where are they?

    As it turns out, many are right where Democrats don't want them to be — in the swing states that could determine the winner of next year's presidential election.

    In Minnesota, for example, Democrats used to enjoy a 31-26 advantage in party identification. Now, it's 31-28 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 58,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast. Next time around, with more Republicans, he might do better.

    In Michigan, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-26 advantage. Now it's 31-29 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 217,000 votes out of 4.2 million cast.

    In Iowa, Democrats used to enjoy a 32-27 advantage. Now, it's 34-27 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 4,000 votes out of 1.3 million cast.

    In Wisconsin, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-29 advantage. Now, it's 30-29 in favor of the Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost by about 6,000 votes out of 2.6 million cast.
    Those are the states that have turned over. In some other states that Bush lost narrowly, Democrats maintain their edge — just less so.

    For example, in New Mexico, Democrats used to enjoy a 40-30 advantage. Now, it's 39-35. In 2000, Bush lost by just 366 votes.

    And in the most important swing state of all in 2000, Florida, Democrats used to enjoy a 38-33 advantage. Now, it's 37-36 in favor of Republicans. That means Bush might be able to build on his 537-vote landslide.

    "Republican gains have come across the board, both geographically and demographically," the Pew report says. "There have been increases in Republican party affiliation in nearly every major voting bloc, except among African-Americans."

    And even though Democrats still have a tiny 31-30 advantage nationwide, that may be of little use next year.

    "Because Republicans traditionally turn out to vote in higher numbers than do Democrats, the current division in party affiliation among the public could provide the GOP with a slight electoral advantage," the Pew report says.

    Much of the discussion about the study has emphasized its conclusion that the United States remains deeply divided politically.

    Some commentators have suggested that the study says the country is even more deadlocked than it was in 2000. "The red states get redder, [and] the blue states get bluer," wrote the Washington Post's E. J. Dionne.

    Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. According to Pew, red states have indeed gotten redder, but blue states have gotten redder, too. Even the bluest of the blues, such as California, are a bit less so than a few years ago.

    Why is it happening? Republican National Committee chief Ed Gillespie has an obvious partisan stake in the situation but nevertheless offered a cogent analysis in a recent memo to party leaders.

    "As the Democrat party gets smaller, it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry," Gillespie wrote, "and as it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry, it gets smaller."

    Ask Democrats and they'll tell you the Pew numbers don't reveal much about anything. The Democrats point out, reasonably, that party affiliation will not matter if more and more people decide not to vote for Bush.

    "The number we'll be watching is the number of people who vote for or against President Bush," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Tony Welch.

    Welch pointed to a recent Marist College poll that found that 44 percent of those surveyed said they definitely plan to vote against Bush next year, while 38 percent said they definitely plan to vote for him.

    "Unless you're a bean counter worried about registration, this is what matters," says Welch.

    Well, yes. But the Marist poll also found Bush beating any Democrat matched against him.

    And the trends in party affiliation in the swing states that went to Gore in 2000 suggest that it's going to be harder for a Democrat to win those states in 2004.

    Count all those beans together and they could mean big trouble for the next Democratic nominee.

    — Byron York is also a columnist for The Hill, where this first appeared.
     
  2. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #2
    add to that a very liberal Howard Dean and it dont look good for the demo's. i would rather big Al run again and i dont mean Al Sharpten though he is a cool mac user.
     
  3. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #3
    A Republican accused Democrats of being elitist? What?

    Pot. Kettle.

    Unfortunately, the guy might have a point. I didn't realize so many states were so close last election. Well, I suppose as long as Bush keeps pandering to business interests, lying about Iraq, and giving tax cuts to the wealthy I really shouldn't worry. But I do.

    BTW, I would vote for Al Sharpton, if for no other reason than that he scares the bejeezus out of the establishment. :D
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Shows the need for more than a 2 party system.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    Hmm. I wonder where this trite dreck was dredged up from -- freerepublic?

    Sanfelipe the propagandist strikes again, and I still ain't buying it.

    How about some reputable news, instead of bubblegum nonsense?

    Besides, we all know Bush will win the election when Diebold makes sure those Democratic votes never get counted and can't be recounted.
     
  6. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #6
    pseudo - have I missed something here?
    Do we have a morphed member in our midst?
     
  7. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    I'm not a pollster, nor am I involved in the political process as I used to be, but there definately seems to be a trend of republicans showing distate for Bush and his policies.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Where's that? I haven't seen any major breaks between Republicans and Bush. I see mostly party unity or lockstep obedience, whatever you want to call it.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    I'm pretty sure Rower fingered g5man as actually being ovisanfelipebond a while back.
     
  10. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #10
    ovi=sanfelipe=g5man...a moderator mentioned all the ip's match.




    DNFTT
     
  11. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #11
    There are way too many variables to even begin trying to guess the '04 outcome at this point. Both parties are in potentially bad situations and we don't even know who the Dems will run.

    I don't think that '04 will be as close as '00 but I have no idea which way things will sway.
     
  12. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #12
    I think Ovi posted the same thread topic. Same IP, Same pointless topics.
     
  13. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #13
    Re: Landslide 2004....

    even though i am a democrat, i have to applaud the long and arduous effort of the gop to capture many of the working class and lower class american citizens

    while that demographics was once solidly democratic in the 70s and before, many of the unions which supported them in the past have diminished somewhat and the workers of america on the lower end of the pay scale were without a representative

    while the dems were so busy pushing gay rights, womens rights, pro choice, and tax reform to help the middle class, the gop moved in on democratic territory and were able to capture enough of them to gain a foothold in the west and midwest and this last election showed that bush got "just" enough to win

    if bush had captured even one less tiny state, we would have gore as president

    for the democrats to get back, they will have to keep a conservative stance and yet at the same time bring back the lower and middle class working people who have been ditched by the unions of america

    and if the dems put up a wax figure of a boring person up there in 2004, no matter how good their ideas, the charismatic bush, with his direct style, will definitely have another four years and if he succeeds ultimately in the war and in t returning the bull market to a decent level...he will be hailed as the greatest republican president since lincoln having followed clinton who had the longest period of economic growth in us history and routing the japansese who outpaced the usa in the 80s with their high tech, statiscial approach to manufacturing

    i make no predictions now since politics is like the computer hardware market...a lot can happen in 12 months

    that being said, i would like to see another democrat in the oval office
     
  14. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #14
    This is pure (and ridiculous) speculation.

    Look here: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=285

    The percentage of people identifying themselves as Democrats has been in decline since the late sixties. And yet Carter and Clinton were both elected in declining (yearly) Democratic identification. Heck, you could even say that the Democratic party has been in decline since FDR left the presidency. It wouldn't be too far from the truth.

    But none of this matters in the least when talking about the potential of a single candidate's electability. Even within the those who identify with a particular party, there are *tons* of swing voters who vote for whichever candidate they like best.

    Until a democratic candidate and his/her platform is known, you have no idea whether or not Bush can beat them. And with a full year until election time, you have no idea what happen to the economy, the Iraqi situation, the terrorist situation, our international standing, the Patriot Act situation, the questionable dealings Bush has with industry, etc. Bush could lose standing with the American people in that time frame just as easily as he could gain.

    This kind of analysis serves little purpose and is, historically, about as accurate as exit polls in predicting race outcomes. And the funniest part is: we don't even know which candidate Bush will run against! As hard as it is to predict election results when the candidates are known, it is that much harder to predict the election when a candidate isn't known and hasn't even gotten his message to the American people yet.

    This is FUD, pure and simple.

    Taft
     
  15. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #15
    Now I am aware that g5man is in fact sanfelipe (amongst others) everything is clear. Expect further reactionary, puerile, inflammatory and ill-considered posts of this sort from him (them).

    The use of multiple identities to post to the same forum speaks for itself (there may be a valid reason for doing so but I can't think of one at the moment).
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    If the numbers are to be accepted, they indicate that the proportion of the electorate who don't identify with either major party is about the same as those who do. In that event, the real deciding factor in a national election are the independents, not the people who tend to vote for their party no matter who they field, because they more or less cancel out.
     
  17. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #17
    I think you're talking about the wrong person, I just did a quick search and didn't find any reference to anyone saying that g5man was sanfelipe/Ovi before this post, I believe you're talking about another member who posted awhile back, bond003, who's IP adress matched sanfelipe's exactly.

    Just don't want any unneccecary crap thrown around...
     
  18. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #18
    Not that I think this matters (as long as Ovi/g5man doesn't go postal, I don't care), but the thread which this first came up in was here:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45128

    Rower_CPU matched g5man's IP with Ovi's. Rower's post is about halfway down the page.

    Taft
     
  19. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #19
    Ah, ok then, guess I missed it, whoops....
     
  20. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #20
    man, i am glad that i am a democrat

    since the postal, psycho, baby eating, poo eating posters here have all been right wing republicans

    but there is no reason for them to be postal...W runs the show and they have the senate and the house of repsentatives

    when i was a kid in the 60s, it was the ultra liberals you had to watch out for, anti war but armed with M-16s, bombs, and a scarier presence than any police department...and they had a way of brainwashing white upper middle class girls who had no trouble carving up movie stars or holding up banks:p
     
  21. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #21
    No prob. I tried to search for that thread too to confirm before I posted but couldn't find it either, so you had every right to question what I said.

    I was confident enough that my memory served me correctly, and I guess I was right :)
     
  22. Durandal7 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2001
    #22
    I fail to see how this is especially inflammatory aside from the fact that a few members diasagree with it.

    Of course the article is bunk, but most of what gets posted in this section is bunk.

    Addressing the article itself, it is merely pointing out the obvious. Membership of both parties is plumetting as more people classify themselves as independent. The reality is that both parties are disgraces and the numbers reflect this fact.
     
  23. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #23
    I like my tax cut. :p
     
  24. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #24
    Well... when you have an administration start doing things like violating rights with abominations like the PATRIOT Act...
     
  25. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #25
    Re: Re: Landslide 2004....

    I'd settle for a strict constructionist in the oval office.
     

Share This Page