OneBlueSky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:35 PM
Original message |
here's a guy who's projecting a Bush victory in November . . . |
|
claims to have developed a "scientific" method for determining the outcome of the election . . . even cites 20 reasons why Bush will be reselected . . . if you read them over, you kinda get the impression that the guy is a Republican and a Bush booster . . . (fwiw, I think he's dead wrong . . .) http://electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
|
wuushew
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:40 PM
Response to Original message |
1. What an idiot NM is not going red |
|
Edited on Mon Feb-09-04 12:41 PM by wuushew
Iowa does concern me, but given the strong turnout in the Iowa caucus anyone with a brain can see we will get atleast 260 EV.
|
trotsky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:41 PM
Response to Original message |
|
His "reasons" (and yes, he is a rabid Repub) are wishful thinking. He's completely ignoring everything that's going against *, like AWOL (his "bombshell" item), the failure to find WMDs, and can we all say it together now... JOBS!
|
blackcat77
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. If he thought the drunk driving thing was a bombshell |
|
The AWOL issue will be a nuke.
|
blackcat77
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:44 PM
Response to Original message |
3. He makes some good points |
|
But he's whistling past the graveyard on others, such as the "revolt of the Deaniacs." The one thing all Dems have in common is a strong desire to see Bush out of the White House.
And even his own rosy predictions only show Bush winning the popular vote by 0.3%. That just doesn't jibe with the Dems losing every battleground state.
|
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. hmm, interesting analysis |
|
what's frightening is that the numbers are close to reality. wait and listen. scary that the demsa can win only new england, upper mid-west and the west coast and still be that close to winning. in fact, dean/kerry/.kucinich/sharpton (so as not to annoy anyonw) could actually win the popular vote by carrying just those states and still lose the white house.
still, I think his analysis is cynical and wrong. he has nothing good to say about bush, really, only the cult of personality of Rudy Guiliani (a businessman now) and others to help Bush. He makes a good point about the olympics, but I don't think 9/11 coming right after the convention will really help them. The media will be filled with stories of the 9/11 families pissed at bush for failing to invesitgate, filled with stories of NYC getting stiffed by Bush on the rebuilding bill. THe best dem state he can come up with that is in play is Wisconsin? the state he couldn't win with a popular republican governor, who has been margianilized in this administration? come now. And Florida is in play, I hate to tell him. Ohio is in play (manufacturing and all) and Indiana is in play. West Virginia is in play, New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, Virginia, New Hampshire, all the swing states he hs going to Bush. unlikely.
|
papau
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:51 PM
Response to Original message |
5. The econ model fellow spins his only twice incorrect model to show * wins |
|
Edited on Mon Feb-09-04 12:52 PM by papau
It is interesting to play with
A variable he uses -The number of qtrs with great than 3.2% growth - 2 so far - is so out of the air as to bring a smile to anyone who sees the result of Bush's 1.9% average GDP growth over 3 years - the worst in 50 years.
Indeed, unless you input into his formula a 6% recession this year Bush can not lose!
|
rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:52 PM
Response to Original message |
6. this guy is not thread-worthy |
corporatewhore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 12:54 PM
Response to Original message |
7. he will lose the oldschool conservative vote if we run an anti patriotact |
Norquist Nemesis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 01:05 PM
Response to Original message |
9. I want more electoral college analysis |
|
Edited on Mon Feb-09-04 01:05 PM by liburl
There are a great number of states that are NOT required to vote the electoral college in line with the popular vote. After Reagan's first term, I gave up for a while because it really didn't seem to matter. Illinois is one of those states and the Republicans have had (until this past year) a firm hold on the political strings for a number of years.
So again, I keep seeing us all excited about our momentum, angry voters, and crossers but will it matter? What would happen if an overwhelming majority voted Bush out. My understanding is nothing, because legally it's the electoral college and that would be upheld in the Supreme Court.
I guess I'm just nuts.
*edit spelling*
|
zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-09-04 01:21 PM
Response to Original message |
10. We should keep track of all the LOTEs/idjits who predict a Bush |
|
landslide (especially this early in the act; what, the coin was just tossed in the Superbowl, and they're saying that Carolina has won?).
Pray for the election to allow us to send sympathy cards to these people with the text "Sorry you hitched your star to such a LOSER!!!!!"
Enclose a return address from another Loser supporter!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:37 AM
Response to Original message |