Projecting the upcoming elections
  and commenting on things along the way... 		Election Projection        
2004 Edition        
Political Weblog | 2004 Election Projection | Projection Formula | State-by-state Analysis | The Blogging Caesar Bio | Reader Comments    

 Archives:  January, 2004

  Previous Commentary

January 31, 2004

Polling data update

The end-of-month projection for January is up.  Bush's margin has dwindled over the last 3 weeks.  His job approval numbers are still strong, but John Kerry's rise of late has cut into the head-to-head numbers considerably.  In the last week alone, the President's advantage over the Democratic candidate has been cut in half from 10 points to 5.  That number is likely to fall further as soon as the next poll is released.  The current data still include an NBC News / Washingon Post poll from January 12 which showed Bush leading Dean by 17%.  Not counting that poll, Bush is running barely 2 points better than the Democrat.  In fact, Bush trails Kerry in the last two polls released.

If people become more dissatisfied with Bush's job performance in the coming weeks, we'll see a significant move in the electoral votes toward the Democratic candidate.  Several states are now within 3 or 4 points of changing hue from red to blue.  The conclusion is rather obvious - Bush's standing is not nearly as good at month's end as it was when the month began.  Moreover, it appears to be sinking further.  It'll be interesting to see if and when it stops this downward trend.

As of tonight, Election Projection shows Bush leading the Democrat 52.73% to 46.27% in popular vote percentage and 356-182 in electoral votes. The margin has decreased 2.5% to 6.46%.  He has lost Maine and Washington since the last update.  He did salvage one electoral vote in Maine due to a calculation change.  This time around, thanks to pointers from several of my readers from that great state, I am awarding Maine's electoral votes properly based on congressional districts - one EV for each of 2 districts and 2 EVs statewide.

Since I began tracking these projections in August, 2003, the President's most impressive numbers have been 477 electoral votes and a 17.60% margin seen on the 12th of this month. His previous lows were 181 EVs with a margin of -6.63% on September 5, 2003.

posted at 11:00pm 01/31/04

Link to this post |


January 30, 2004

EDICT #4:  Kerry to face Bush in November

Ok, I know this is not much of a risk, but I might as well commit before it becomes a foregone conclusion.  So much for the two-man race.  Senator John Kerry is now my choice to be the Democratic nominee.  I'll address later what I think his candidacy will mean for the grand finale in November.  Right or wrong, this is my final prediction.  I'm glad I didn't pull the trigger for Edwards last week when the temptation presented itself.  After his showing in Iowa, I almost decided on the North Carolina senator.  The surge of support Kerry has realized nationwide since Iowa changed my mind and gives me confidence that he will win the nomination.

posted at 10:55pm 01/30/04

Link to this post |


Iowa - the state that changed the election

Fast forward to election night 2004.  Peter Jennings is talking to the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, asking him how he feels now that the long presidential campaign has drawn to a close.  I close my eyes and think back to the first week of the year.  The Iowa caucuses were only a couple of weeks away then, and Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination.  Richard Gephardt was snapping at his heels in Iowa, while John Kerry's campaign was on life-support.  Then something as old as democracy itself happened, and it changed everything.  Dean and Gephardt started fighting.  So far ahead were they, that not much attention was paid to the 6 other also-rans in the field.

In a normal two-candidate political race, negative ads change voter sentiment, at best, only slightly.  Usually, in fact, mud-slinging is a wash.  The situation changes when there are other candidates around, especially when the negativity is aimed almost entirely at the two leaders. Such was the case in Iowa.  Caucus-goers there, when asked to choose the lesser of two evils, chose neither.  Thus came about the resurrection of John Kerry.  Iowans defected from both Dean and Gephardt in droves and found a home with Kerry.  Sure, John Edwards also benefitted, but it was Kerry who came out on top.  Perhaps never before did the landscape of a nominating process change as drastically as it did this year in Iowa.  Howard Dean went from favorite to pathetic (remember the scream?) in one night.  Richard Gephardt had his political head handed to him on a platter.   Edwards was deemed a rising star, a true contender.  And, most of all, Kerry acquired the momentum that would carry him, virtually untouched, to paydirt.  From Iowa, he would easily win the conference championship and the chance to meet Mr. Bush in the Super Bowl.

I am roused from my mental detour by the rising inflection of Jenning's voice as he interrupts Senator Kerry.  "Senator, we have some news you may be interested in."  Turning to the camara, he says, "We now project Senator John Kerry will win the state of Vermont!"  I'm thinking to myself again.  How must Howard Dean be feeling right now?  But for one normal, everyday political feud, Dr. Dean, quite possibly, would have just carried his home state. Ironically, if only Kerry had been a stronger foe back in early January, Dean could have been the Democratic nominee and well on his way to a landslide defeat at the hands of the soon-to-be re-elected president.

posted at 10:45pm 01/30/04

Link to this post |


January 29, 2004

EDICT #3:  It's a two-man race!!

Howard Dean has spent his money!  He can no longer be considered a possible nominee. Read this, this, and this.   If these stories are true, Dean has lost the one thing that would keep him in the running - his money.  Losses in both Iowa and New Hampshire could have been overcome only with tons of it.  Since Dean has spent almost all of that remarkable $40 million, the funds just aren't there.  Moreover, donors will be less and less inclined to throw more money at Dean considering the current financial state of his campaign.  Do you hear that sad music in the background?  That would be The Blogging Caesar humming a dirge for the good Doctor.  His campaign is dead.  It's now down to two - John Kerry and John Edwards.

posted at 12:40am 01/29/04

Link to this post |


January 28, 2004

Iraqis - "Don't call me Saddam!"

From Donald Sensing over at One Hand Clapping:
Cable news reports today say that large numbers of Iraqi men are taking legal action to change their names. They all have a name in common: Saddam Hussein, or a variant thereof.

In the new, post-Saddam Iraq, the men said that it hurts them socially and economically to carry the same name as the hated former dictator, who is now in American custody.

This development is a very strong indicator that we are winning there. The less important indicator is that the men are changing their names. The more important indicator is that the revulsion at the name is so widespread - and so openly expressed - that the men see no alternative.

More than almost anything else I've seen, this fact convinces me that Iraq's people have turned an critical corner. They are more and more certain that the pro-Saddam jihadis cannot prevail and that America is there for the long haul. So the people are no longer hedging their bets by consorting with men blamelessly named Saddam Hussein by their parents. And the men concerned are divesting themselves of the name quickly.

They are leaving the past behind now in concrete ways, and the pace will only increase.

This just shows once again that the real winners from Saddam's ouster are the Iraqi people. They are serious about a free society, even writing religious freedom into their constitution. A member of the Iraqi Governing Council stated as much in a recent interview on CNN.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if this unprecedented development, this historical birthing of freedom, were covered in a balanced and fair manner by the national media?

Were that the case, all Americans would feel the same awesome sense of satisfaction and pride that I do when I think about the great work we have done and are doing over there.

Way to go United States of America!!

posted at 11:15pm 01/28/04

Link to this post |


New Hampshire reactions

Before the voting began, I predicted Kerry would win and Dean would finish second.  That much I got right, narrowly missing the exact margin by 1 point.  Edwards, I'm relieved to say, let me down.  I predicted he would finish third with 20% of the vote.  He finished a fraction behind Clark with a much poorer than expected 12%.  Perhaps I've overestimated him.  I hope so.  I still see him as a possible nominee.  He had nothing to lose here and, I believe, lost nothing in spite of his fourth place showing.

Clark, on the other hand, had a lot more at stake.  This was his chance to build momentum for the friendlier states coming in the near future.  Instead of making waves, he barely held on to third place, well behind Kerry and Dean.  With Kerry clearly wresting away the mantle of the "anti-dean" candidate that brought Clark into the race anyway, I think we saw the beginning of the end for the General last night.  He may hang around for awhile, but he's no longer a viable choice in my book.  Though he may try to spin this result in his favor, I believe I was right when I forecasted that Clark's decline would be a big story heading toward next Tuesday.

Dean salvaged some measure of good standing by finishing a solid second.  It is a clear indication that he has at least stopped the bleeding that began in the run up to the Iowa caucuses.  His cash will make him a force in the upcoming months, but I'm not sure he has enough pull among the Democratic rank-and-file to push him passed Kerry, especially now that their focus seems to be on beating Bush in November instead of simply expressing their anger at him.

It appears more and more that the person Democrats feel can beat Bush is John Kerry.  The senator from Massachusetts is clearly the front-runner now.  However, that may not be a good place to be in this political climate.  Perhaps more this year than in the past, being front-runner means subjecting yourself to ruthless character assassinations and dirty politicking.  We'll see how Kerry holds up under the inevitable barrage of personal attacks.  Whew, I'm glad I'm not a Democrat running against this bunch!

posted at 1:30am 01/28/04

Link to this post |


Wictory Wednesday

Today is Wictory Wednesday.  Every Wednesday, I'll be asking my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.

President Bush has been hard at work promoting solid values in this country.  We need him to continue for 4 more years.  Others are working just as hard to see that he doesn't get that opportunity.  The money will be flowing into unregulated democratic coffers like the one to which mega-zillionaire George Soros has contributed millions.  Expectations are that committees like these will raise in excess of a quarter billion dollars to defeat our President. With financial power as great as this working against him, it is imperative for Bush's supporters to get involved!

You can donate and volunteer.  You can also help by talking to your friends and getting them involved in this pivotal battle for the heart of America.

Also, if you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And if you e-mail Polipundit at wictory@blogsforbush.com, he can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

posted at 8:30am 01/28/04

Link to this post |


January 27, 2004

It's a three-man race

The vote counts are still coming in, but the result is clear:  This is a three-man race.  Either John Kerry, John Edwards, or Howard Dean will be the next Democratic nominee for president.

posted at 9:10pm 01/27/04

Link to this post |


George W. Bush is a great president

I discussed earlier the shortcomings of President Bush.  In that post, I wished for a more conservative person to win the White House in 2008.  I still feel that way, but this post, found through PoliPundit, shows, in a very detailed list, all the reasons to be proud of Bush and to stand, with unwavering resolve, behind him.  I'm glad I read this list because it helped renew in me the conviction that Bush is the right man for the job right now.  Read it now and whenever you feel your support for the President waning.

posted at 5:20pm 01/27/04

Link to this post |


More on the "jobless recovery"

The Washington Post has an good editorial on the current job situation.  It does a decent job explaining why the lag in job creation is not such a bad thing.  They even advise Democrats to refrain from attacking Bush on the subject, though they couldn't resist slipping in a barb against him anyway:
Mr. Bush should not be blamed for this, though his irresponsible fiscal policy harms business confidence and therefore job creation.
It is an article worth reading if you're interested in the job situation.  I would recommend reading this National Review article, too.  Many may not know that there are two relevant surveys taken by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to determine how the job market is performing.
The first, called the household survey, is based on telephone interviews with about 60,000 households per month. This survey is used to calculate the official unemployment rate, which consists of people not working but looking for work as a share of the labor force (those working plus those looking for work). Those not looking for work, such as retirees and stay-at-home mothers, therefore, are not counted as unemployed.

The second survey is called the payroll survey and is based on the actual employment records of domestic businesses. Economists generally consider this survey to be a more accurate measure of month-to-month changes in national employment. However, there is evidence that during cyclical upturns, such as we are in now, the payroll survey misses many new business startups, causing it to understate employment growth.

Using the household survey, job creation hasn't lagged the economic recovery at all.  In fact:
The household survey has shown strong employment growth - an increase of more than 2 million jobs between Nov. 2002 and Nov. 2003.
These jobs, the articles goes on to explain, will eventually show up in the payroll surveys as the new businesses, started by the self-employed, are "found."  Bottom line:  Be encouraged that the country continues to create jobs at a healthy clip.  It's just a matter of time before they show up in the numbers the media likes to tout.

posted at 12:10pm 01/27/04

Link to this post |


January 26, 2004

What about the base?

Polipundit has an insightful post about the general sense of unease among conservatives. Here's an excerpt:
Conservatives find it frustrating that, when Republicans control Congress, the White House and, some would say, the Supreme Court, so few conservative policies get passed.  We've gotten tax cuts and the successful prosecution of the War on Terror; but on everything else, the liberals are winning.  They got campaign finance "reform," "no child left behind" without vouchers, no drilling in ANWR, a boondoggle farm bill, Medicare prescription drugs without significant reforms, the president's suicidal immigration "reform" proposal and on and on.  Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is shifting ever leftward, legalizing racial quotas and opening the door to the imposition of gay marriage by ultra-liberal judges.
...Sigh... As much as I love the President, part of me longs for a real conservative.  Maybe in 2008, when the economy is booming and Iraq is blooming, we can elect a true conservative. However, let's not forget, it took liberals 50 years to achieve many of the results they sought. We've only had 3 so far.  If we can weather this incremental baby step and not give up the conservative march, we can continue building a society based on solid conservative values. Remember, too, that President Bush's most lasting legacy will be his judicial appointments. This is one area where Bush has shown the right stuff, in his picks if not his will to push them through the Senate.  Now if we can only vote in a filibuster-proof Senate.

posted at 8:00pm 01/26/04

Link to this post |


January 25, 2004

EDICT #2:  Kerry by 14 in New Hampshire

After a dismal showing in the Iowa caususes, The Blogging Caesar takes aim at New Hampshire:  Kerry takes the prize, 14 points better than Dean.  The Deaniacs lead Dean to a second place finish, edging out a surging Edwards.  Edwards may finish second if the weather is nice (it's forecasted to be cold and snowy).  Clark will see his stock drop significantly with a 4th place finish.  Why is Lieberman still in it?

My predicted finish:       
Kerry
Dean
Edwards
Clark
Lieberman
Kucinich
Sharpton		 36%
22%
20%
15%
5%
1%
<1%

The biggest stories from New Hampshire will be the decline of Clark and, again, the rise of Edwards.  Look for an Edwards blowout in South Carolina next week.

Update:  Seems like the USA Today must be reading my blog: Clark's in trouble.

Update2:  Oh, maybe this is why Lieberman is still in it.

posted at 7:00pm 01/25/04

Link to this post |


January 24, 2004

Wisconsin Senate race

Senator Russ Feingold, D-WI, of campaign finanace reform fame, is up for re-election this year.  He is likely, but not certain, to retain his seat.  He is a possible upset special in the unlikely scenario of a filibuster-proof Senate for which I pray often.

Boots and Sabers has a good and thorough rundown of that race.  I recommend it to anyone interested in Senate election battles.

posted at 11:55pm 01/24/04

Link to this post |


Polling data update

The polling data has been updated to reflect a new poll.  Only one poll is added in this update, but that one, from Fox News, eats into Bush's margin significantly.  President Bush has lost Illinois as well as a good chunck of his popular vote advantage.

The electoral votes now stand at 370-168 while the national margin dropped over 2 points from 11.26% to 8.96%.  Since I began tracking these projections in August, 2003, the President's most impressive numbers have been 477 electoral votes and a 17.60% margin seen on the 12th of this month.  His previous lows were 181 EVs with a margin of -6.63% on September 5, 2003.

Update:  A new poll from Newsweek shows Kerry besting Bush head-to-head.  The poll came out after I posted today's update.  It will be included in my next update early next week. I did run the numbers quickly when I got wind of the poll.  Obviously, it causes more erosion in Bush's projected margin of victory, but, interestingly, it doesn't change the electoral vote totals.

posted at 2:00pm 01/24/04

Link to this post |


January 23, 2004

Bush to propose spending freeze

Ahhhh... The sound of those words echoing in my mind is like the first sip of my 44oz Diet Coke after a long stint on the elliptical.  An article in the Washington Times is reporting that Bush may be starting to sway back to the right, fiscally speaking (at least that's my interpretation):
President Bush will propose an increase of less than 1 percent for federal programs not related to defense or homeland security, effectively freezing discretionary spending in the next budget, after coming under fire from conservatives to control runaway spending.
Only a privileged few get the chance to know what goes on in the closed-door meeting rooms of our nation's capital.  I can't say if this is simply the next stage of a grand design Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove concocted many moons ago, or if the President is making a middle-of-the-stream adjustment to deter a possible backlash to his fiscal policies.  Either way, I am cautiously delighted.

The article continues:
Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the proposal is "definitely a good start."

"The key question is whether the White House will back up this proposal with a veto threat, because last year the president proposed a 4 percent increase and, with the passage of the omnibus spending bill, he's about to sign a 9 percent increase," he said.

So, the question is, will Bush back up these words with the conviction he has displayed in the war on terror?  If he does, conservatives everywhere may overlook his past fiscal indescretions and solidify the base once again.  If not, it'll be like taking a big, long swig of that "Big Gulp" only to find it's Real Coke instead - yuck!!

posted at 8:40am 01/23/04

Link to this post |


January 22, 2004

Quickly on the "State of the Union" address

Some of you may be wondering why there's been no mention of Bush's SOTU address in this blog.  The fact that I wasn't compelled to rush to the computer and blog something about it straightaway should give you some idea of my reaction to it.  I didn't find the speech very moving.  Yes, the first part reinforced how relieved and grateful to God I am that George W. Bush is our president in this time of war against global terror.  What this man says carries weight among those who seek to kill us and those who harbor such murderers, because he backs up the words with action.  What a contrast to the recent past.

The second half of the speech was mostly just a litany of "how government can help you" advertisements.  I'm not opposed to some measure of well-placed government aid; yet, with every proposal to spend more money, I find myself hoping we've reached the extent of Bush's "compassionate conservatism."   This address indicates we're not quite there yet.

In conclusion, the President did a good job, not a great one, delivering his remarks - remarks that were moderately rousing in the beginning and moderately boring in the end.  I'll give him a B+ on the first half and a C- on the second.  Overall grade: C+

posted at 12:15pm 01/22/04

Link to this post |


More on the projection formula:  Disclaimers

I felt the need, due to feedback that has arisen from the remarkable response I've received since kicking off this site one week ago, to revise the formula explanation page.   I've added several disclaimers that I think should clear things up for everyone about the nature of this projection website.  It's good information for regular observers of my projections to have in mind. Check it out.

posted at 8:50am 01/22/04

Link to this post |


January 21, 2004

From the Dawg pound

I just ran across a forum discussion (on a University of Georgia sports page, of all places!) where a bunch of "dawgs" were going back and forth about the legitimacy of my projections. Some were defending it, other trashing it.  It was fun to read.  I wanted to respond, but that requires registering - to be read: costs money.  Hence, I decided to take them on in this space. The information is suited to all readers of this blog to futher understanding of the election projection and its formula, so I hope everyone will enjoy it.

Hey dawgs! (you know who you are) This is for you...

First of all, I am a huge Bush supporter. Come to think of it, though, I was a huge supporter back in September as well.  At that time, my "biased" projection had Bush losing by just under 7 points and getting only 181 electoral votes.  Go figure.  Second, I don't "pick and choose" the polls I use.  I get my polling data from the Polling Report.  Every poll listed there that fits into one of the categories I've defined gets included.  The only semi-exception is Zogby's measure of job approval.  His question on the subject tests a different metric.  Finally, Texas_Dawg is right, the primary purpose of this projection is not to predict what will eventually happen in November.  Instead, its purpose is to provide a general sense of the President's standing right now.

By the way...Go WOLFPACK!!!

posted at 6:00pm 01/21/04

Link to this post |


Updated state-by-state analysis

Dean's fabulous crash and burn show in Iowa - he went down kicking and screaming, didn't he? - has forced me to alter my state-by-state analysis.  I'm still sticking by the state-by-state predictions.   It's way too early to be shifting those around.  However, I'm no longer willing to predict a Dean nomination (is anyone?).  You'll see I've changed Dean to "The Dem", reflecting my trepidation at this point to name the eventual nominee.  I will take another look at it after New Hampshire.  Maybe then I'll be brave enough to make a revised prediction.

posted at 8:40am 01/21/04

Link to this post |


Polling data update

The polling data has been updated to reflect a new round of polls.  President Bush has lost more ground, giving back both Delaware and California. That should satisfy a lot of the critics out there.  Of course, they'll probably just think I caved, but that's not the case. As I've said before, this projection is objective.  The new polls included in this round of updates were enough to drop the President's vote to just over 55% nationally, just under the 55.7% threshold he needs to take California.

The electoral votes now stand at 391-147 while the national margin dropped almost three points from 14.18% to 11.26%.  Since I began tracking these projections in August, 2003, the President's most impressive numbers have been 477 electoral votes and a 17.60% margin seen on the 12th of this month.  His previous lows were 181 EVs with a margin of -6.63% on September 5, 2003.

posted at 1:00am 01/21/04

Link to this post |


Wictory Wednesday

Today is Wictory Wednesday.  Every Wednesday, I'll be asking my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.

President Bush has been hard at work promoting solid values in this country.  We need him to continue for 4 more years.  Others are working just as hard to see that he doesn't get that opportunity.  The money will be flowing into unregulated democratic coffers like the one to which mega-zillionaire George Soros has contributed millions.  Expectations are that committees like these will raise in excess of a quarter billion dollars to defeat our President. With financial power as great as this working against him, it is imperative for Bush's supporters to get involved!

You can donate and volunteer.  You can also help by talking to your friends and getting them involved in this pivotal battle for the heart of America.

Also, if you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And if you e-mail Polipundit at wictory@blogsforbush.com, he can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

posted at 10:30am 01/21/04

Link to this post |


January 20, 2004

Dean opted out

Riding high with confidence and heavily laden with small donor cash, Dean decided last year not to accept federal matching funds.  After his distant third-place finish last night, I wonder how Dean is feeling this morning about that decision.  I doubt the coffers will be collecting spoils at the same rate now that his momentum is clearly gone.  Just a thought.

posted at 1:30pm 01/20/04

Link to this post |


January 19, 2004

John Edwards rising

I'm from North Carolina, and I couldn't understand, knowing how effective Edwards was here, why he was consistently polling in the single-digits in Iowa.  Now, I'm worrying a little.  I just sense something dangerous about him.  Edwards is one of the smoothest, slickest politicians I've ever seen (not in a car salesman way, either).  I watched his 1998 Senate campaign - it was down-right scary.  It was then that I told my wife I wouldn't be surprised if he were president someday.

Be warned: don't count him out.  On the heels of his showing tonight, he has nothing to lose in New Hampshire, and even a third place finish will be viewed as a major victory.  Then comes South Carolina where he has to be considered the prohibitive favorite now.  As more and more Democrats are introduced to him, I can see him rising to the top before it's all over.

Until a week ago, it looked like my apprehensions about him were unfounded.  Now, they're back in full force.  I just heard a guy on local TV quote Edwards as saying he was "the little engine that could."  Somehow that rings uneasily true tonight.

posted at 11:00pm 01/19/04

Link to this post |


Lesson learned: IOWA

Surprise, surprise!  Congratulations to Senator John Kerry for resurrecting just in time to win the Iowa caucuses and to Senator John Edwards for coming out of nowhere to take second. For every prediction that turns out to be wrong, we do get the chance to peer back in time and figure out what we missed.  The caucuses tonight are no exception.  One thing comes to mind immediately.  I was woefully ignorant about how caucuses work.  Oh well, I'll be better prepared the next time 'round.

The night was not a total loss for me, however, as one of my predictions seems likely now. While posting my misguided prediction for Iowa, I also prognosticated that Gephardt won't be running when "Super Tuesday" rolls around on March 2.  After a fourth place finish in his most crucial state, he may be retired from public life as of tomorrow!

Update:  Gephardt is indeed dropping out tomorrow.

posted at 9:40pm 01/19/04

Link to this post |


Sanctity of Human Life Day

Yesterday was sanctity of human life day.  This is the President's official proclamation:
National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2004
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

As Americans, we are led by the power of our conscience and the history of our country to defend and promote the dignity and rights of all people.  Each person, however frail or defenseless, has a place and a purpose in this world. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we celebrate the gift of life and our commitment to building a society of compassion and humanity.

Today, the principles of human dignity enshrined in the Declaration of Independence -- that all persons are created equal and possess the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- continue to guide us.  In November, I signed into law the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, reaffirming our commitment to protecting innocent life and to a basic standard of humanity -- the duty of the strong to defend the weak.  My Administration encourages adoption and supports abstinence education, crisis pregnancy programs, parental notification laws, and other measures to help us continue to build a culture of life.  By working together, we will provide hope to the weakest among us and achieve a more compassionate and merciful world.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Sunday, January 18, 2004, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.  I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies in our homes and places of worship and to reaffirm our commitment to respecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Amen.  God bless you, Mr President.

View press release here.  Link via Blogs For Bush.

posted at 9:35am 01/19/04

Link to this post |


January 18, 2004

California dreamin'

I've received a lot of flack for the GOP hue which now colors that left coast behemoth of California. Comments I've heard portray a heavy doubt about the President's chances there - and these are from conservatives.  Well, I want to point out a poll (I know they can't be trusted, but even so...) by Field Research taken January 5-13, 2004.  It shows Bush trailing in California against a generic Democrat by one point, while besting every one of the Democratic contenders when polled head-to-head by at least 3 points.

The election projection formula currently forecasts a Bush win by 1.8% in California, with 56.59% of the national vote.  Pie in the sky?  Not at all.  I'm telling you all, if Bush's job approval numbers stay north of 55% until November, he'll get in the neighborhood of 55-56% of the vote and California will be close, fightin' close. If he's ends up at 58 or so, he'll take 57+% of the vote, and he will win those 55 electoral votes.  Allow yourselves the sheer joy of imagining what quite possibly lies ahead - a great big Bush landslide!

posted at 11:30pm 01/18/04

Link to this post |


Projection formula explanation

Robert Holcomb has linked this site here, here and here.  Thanks, Robert!  He initially expressed skepticism about the projection's usefulness and methodology:
This is fun to look at, even if I'm not convinced that it is entirely accurate.  "Election Projection" is a website dedicated to tracking the 2004 Presidential election.  The map above shows their projected state-by-state results if the election were held today.

The projections show Bush with 449 electoral votes, any Democrat opponent with 89.  Bush with 56.59% of the popular vote, the Dem with 42.41%. It is, of course, far too early to put any faith in projections such as this, especially based upon this projections' methodology.

After I had the chance to discuss it in more detail with him, he was a little more receptive to it:
UPDATE:  I might have been a little too hard on the folks who drew up this projection in my earlier post.  This projection is probably as good as anything else that we have to show the situation right now.  I think that the reliance their methodology places on job approval and other polls makes it unreliable as a prognosticator for the future, given how much those polls change over time. However, the authors readily acknowledge such.  This map only purports to show the right now, not the future.  As we get closer to the election--as the election gets closer to the "right now"--the utility of their methodology as a predictor of the ultimate outcome should improve.
Since I'm sure there are many who share Robert's doubts, I thought this would be a good time to engage in a little projection apologetics.  Skepticism certainly seems natural given the dominating advantage the projection currently shows Bush to have.  I'll remind you that in early September, Bush's numbers actually foretold a significant defeat for the President.  In order to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics of election outcomes through the lens of pre-election polls, let me recommend this slide show.  A lot of the particulars of the formula are based on the trends explained there.  Take care when you view it to realize that the summaries of past elections are what is important to this discussion, rather than the actual numbers presented for the 2004 race.  Slides 19-22 describe the close correlation between incumbent job approval and vote percentage.

I understand a lot will change before November, but, if the election were held today, Bush would do very, very well.

A couple of extra points:

The third party vote.  One thing I wanted to avoid was overstating Bush's standing - I know that doesn't show in the current numbers, but hear me out.  If Nader runs, he'll get 2 or 3 percent or more. This would help Bush considerably since those votes would decrease the votes for the Democrat.  So, as I didn't know whether he would run when I created the formula, I assumed he wouldn't.   I do realize 1% is still pretty low for third party votes, but without Nader, that vote should pretty much draw equally from Bush and his opponent anyway - so it's not really important.

California.  Some would say a red California is just a GOP fantasy.  But, if you look at the numbers, which I tend to do...hehe, you'll see a different picture.  Bush lost here by 15.6% in 2000 if you give the Nader vote to Gore.  In order to make up that deficit, he needs a 7.8+% shift in the vote.  A 7.8% shift nationally requires his vote to increase from 47.87% last time to 55.67% or so in 2004.  Based on the numbers - again, this is not a subjective projection - his current standing would surpass that level.  We'll see if the numbers hold up until November.  I fully expect the projection to show a wide variation in the electoral vote results between now and then.

I welcome any comments or questions you all might have.

posted at 1:45pm 01/18/04

Link to this post |


January 17, 2004

First Contact

I'm very grateful to "The Ole Miss Conservative" for linking to this site.   It is a red-letter day for me as this is the first time the site has been linked from the outside.
Thanks, Patrick!

Update:  Looks like we might be catching on... Thanks Matt Margolis and Pardon My English!

Update2:  If anybody else links to this site, please email me so I can thank you and link your site here.

posted at 1:45pm 01/17/04

Link to this post |


January 16, 2004

US in Iraq, doing it right!

I'm feeling pretty good after reading this article which indicates our willingness to be flexible in Iraq.  Here's an excerpt:
Bremer expressed his respect for the cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, and said he agreed on a need to adopt democratic institutions.  But he said an election could not be scheduled before July 1.

However, he said that there were "all kinds of ways to organize partial elections and caucuses" and that they would be considered.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan had already offered to refine the plan for turning over power to Iraqis, but he also insisted on sticking with the framework of an agreement that calls for an unelected temporary government by July 1.

Notice the spirit of cooperation mixed with practical limits on what we'll consider changing. This is exactly the kind of responsible open-mindedness and vision that I called for here.

posted at 8:10pm 01/16/04

Link to this post |


Hon. Charles Pickering is installed during recess

President Bush has installed Judge Charles Pickering to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals while Congress is in recess. When I read the article, I was struck by one quote from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY.
"As the New Year began, many of us had hoped the president would adopt a more bipartisan approach in his selection of judges.  Instead, this recess appointment is a finger in the eye to all those seeking fairness and bipartisanship in the judicial nominations process."
Mr Schumer explain to me how 41 Democrats and Zero Republicans prohibiting even a vote on Hon. Pickering is either fair or bipartisan.  This is one of the most blatant hypocricies I've seen in a long time!

Contrast this quote by Ted Kennedy reported by the Associated Press:
"The president's recess appointment of this anti-civil rights judge the day after laying a wreath on the grave of Martin Luther King is an insult to Dr. King, an insult to every African-American, and an insult to all Americans who share Dr. King's great goals. It serves only to emphasize again this administration's shameful opposition to civil rights."
With this excerpt from the Fox News article:
But Pickering's supporters, including the former Democratic governor of the state, Ronnie Musgrove, the head of Mississippi's legislative black caucus and James Charles Evers, brother of slain civil rights leader Medgar Evers (search), say the judge is well known for being scrupulously fair on the bench.

They add that as a state prosecutor in 1968, Pickering testified against a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a decision that cost him his re-election.

Mr Kennedy, exactly how is this an insult to Dr. King?  Talk about misrepresentation!  Mr Kennedy, why don't you just truthfully state why you and the other liberals in the Senate oppose Pickering?  No?  Ok, well I will.

Again from the Fox article:
The American Life League, which opposes abortion rights, said it was pleased with the president's decision.

"Clearly the White House has realized that the militant, pro-abortion zealots in the Senate will neither listen to reason nor recognize the limit to their own power in this matter," said Joseph R. Giganti, ALL's director of media and government relations.

Don't anyone be fooled.  Every one of the filibusters being employed by the liberals in the Senate to keep well-qualified judicial minds off the bench are motivated by one issue, and one issue alone: abortion.  How bad do we need that filibuster-proof Senate!

posted at 7:40pm 01/16/04

Link to this post |


Polling data update

The polling data has been updated to reflect a new round of polls.  President Bush has lost some ground, but he is still in the high range he has enjoyed since Saddam's capture. The electoral votes still stand at 449-89 while the national margin has slipped from 15.25% to 14.18%. Since I began tracking these projections in August, 2003, the President's most impressive numbers have been 477 electoral votes and a 17.60% margin seen on the 12th of this month.  His previous lows were 181 EVs with a margin of -6.63% on September 5, 2003.

posted at 2:04pm 01/16/04

Link to this post |


January 15, 2004

Iraqi self-determination

President Bush's reasons for going to war against Saddam Hussein were many.  Not the least of which was the desire to free Iraq from a brutal, murderous tyrant.  Now that Saddam is gone, the Iraqi people are, understandably, itching to govern themselves.
It will be interesting to see how our leadership, both here and over there, handles the developments in Iraq from this point onward.

If we see ourselves as facilitators for the Iraqis to bring stability to their nation, instead of authoritarians who are there to impose stability on them, true historic progress can be achieved.  I'm not suggesting that we submit without question to their every whim.  That would be disastrous given the deep divisions within their society.  I am calling on us to be open to effect any reasonable, workable steps toward stability that the Iraqi people desire.

In the end, we have the opportunity to significantly undermine the widely-held view that our Iraqi "invasion" was primarily personal revenge for Bush and for American economic gain. By giving the Iraqis as large a say as possible now in their future self-determination, we'll achieve our desired end - a free and stable ally in Iraq - while showing ourselves to be a principled people who truly cares about the well-being of others in the world.

If, on the other hand, we force our path to stability on the Iraqi people, we run the very likely risk of producing a violent never-ending conflict there, which will alienate millions of currently grateful Iraqis, cemment and expand opposition among our enemies, and confirm in the minds of many the idea that we are a self-interested bully on the international street. That would be a very great shame.

posted at 5:00pm 01/15/04

Link to this post |


EDICT #1:  Dean will win the Iowa Caucuses

Only 5 days remain until the first popularity contest of the 2004 Presidential Elections takes place.  Democratic voters in Iowa will caucus on Monday.  I've been waiting for this with great anticipation for many months now.  It will be interesting to see how the voters really feel about the eight men and one woman running for the Democratic nomination.  I'm going to lay on the line what I think is swimming around in the voters' minds and make a prediction.

Dean will win comfortably.  Gephardt will find little solace in finishing second.  Kerry and Edwards will tie for third and both will claim moral victories.

Here's how the votes will break out:
Dean
Gephardt
Kerry
Edwards
Clark
Lieberman
Kucinich
Sharpton		 32%
26%
16%
16%
5%
2%
2%
<1%

Kerry's numbers have increased markedly over the last couple weeks.  However, that support is not nearly as intense as Dean's.  I see some of Kerry's supporters sliding over to Dean once the polling booth curtain closes.  Gephardt's backers are more energized than Kerry's as well, but he still can't match the intensity of the Deaniacs.   I'll make another prediction right here: Gephardt will drop out of the race before "Super Tuesday" on March 2.  Check back with me in 2 months.

Update:  I've been informed that caucuses don't have voting booths.  Consider the usage here figurative rather than literal.  Thanks Mike!

posted at 1:20am 01/15/04

Link to this post |


Braun's gone.

Carol Moseley Braun calls it quits and casts her lot with the Doctor.  Obviously, her withdrawal was expected.  So much so, that it's hardly news.  Her coming endorsement of Dean is a bigger story.  The more Dean is seen as a viable choice for African-Americans, the more likely a Dean nomination becomes.

posted at 1:00am 01/15/04

Link to this post |


January 14, 2004

Leave your comments

I've enabled HaloScan's weblog commenting.  You can add your input and reactions to the material I post on this site.  Be careful, though, I'm not nearly as libertarian as PoliPundit. So please keep all comments profanity and obsenity free.  I will be policing comments regularly. Have fun as you let other readers know what you think.

posted at 10:20pm 01/14/04

Link to this post |


Wictory Wednesday

Today is Wictory Wednesday.  Every Wednesday, I'll be asking my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.

President Bush has been hard at work promoting solid values in this country.  We need him to continue for 4 more years.  Others are working just as hard to see that he doesn't get that opportunity.  The money will be flowing into unregulated democratic coffers like the one to which mega-zillionaire George Soros has contributed millions.  Expectations are that committees like these will raise in excess of a quarter billion dollars to defeat our President. With financial power as great as this working against him, it is imperative for Bush's supporters to get involved!

You can donate and volunteer.  You can also help by talking to your friends and getting them involved in this pivotal battle for the heart of America.

Also, if you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And if you e-mail Polipundit at wictory@blogsforbush.com, he can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

posted at 8:30am 01/14/04

Link to this post |


It's up and running!

Welcome to my new site!  It's got a new name and I've got a new character.  Please look around.  You'll see that the same projection data, analysis and commentary are still here. Plus, I've added some charts to the projection page that provide an at-a-glance summary of how the projections ebb and flow over the months.  What I'm sure you'll also notice about the new site is the absence of pop-ups and banners!

I want to make the blog a more prominent part of this website experience.  I'm planning on adding at least 2 posts per day, depending on my work and family schedule, so come on back often.  And I sure would like lots and lots of feedback from you all about the new site.  Any suggestions or observations would be greatly appreciated.  Whether you've written before or not, now would be a great time.  Oh, and feel free to spread the word about the site to anyone you know who might find these projections and comments interesting.  Thanks!

posted at 2:00am 01/14/04

Link to this post |


January 9, 2004

Bad job news

The nation's job market didn't go anywhere in December.  This cannot be interpreted positively for the economic recovery underway.  We'll just have to see what the first quarter holds.   I firmly believe jobs will return in large numbers, but our economy is straining against tectonic shifts in the core structure of several industries.  As the article states:
...many employers continue to look for cheaper labor offshore.

"In a global economy, domestic demand and global supply continue to suggest ... less labor demand than usual" at home, said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Securities."

I'm optimistic about our economy's ability to adapt to what will most probably be permanent losses in manufacturing and high-tech fields to foreign labor supply.  However, I don't know how long it will take or how steep the climb will be.  Eventually this siphoning of jobs away from our shores must diminish, but until then, there will be much uncertainty in our domestic job market.  As for the present, I'll point to surveys such as this to keep me hopeful.

posted at 11:50pm 01/09/04

Respond to this post

Link to this post


Will Clark win?

After receiving an email from a reader expressing concern over Dean's recent stumbles and Clark's recent surge, I thought it appropriate to a say word or two on how a Clark nomination would differ from a Dean nomination.

Reader John S. writes:
I am sensing that Howard Dean may be on the verge of a collapse and that Wes Clark (oh no) will stand as the beneficiary of the shakout.

All the missteps, outrageous statements and such are beginning to pile up for Dean and as voters begin to focus on 2004, many Dems appear to be having 2nd thoughts about Dean.

He goes on to say that he now believes Clark will win the nomination and wonders how Bush will fare against him.

John raises valid concerns, and his expectations may very well come to pass.  I still think Dean comes out on top, though politically damaged and short on cash from the struggle.  As I posted below, Harkin's endorsement is just the medicine the Doctor ordered to get him back on track. However, if I'm wrong, and Clark does win the nomination, I don't believe Bush will lose to him, either.  What's important will be the difference in the makeup of voters and the down-ticket results.

If Dean runs against Bush, moderate democrats will stay home more than usual because of Dean's uber-liberal positions, giving a fighting chance to more of the GOP's senate candidates and making a filibuster-proof senate a remote possibility.

If Clark runs against Bush, more moderate democrats will turn out, boosting votes for democratic house and senate candidates, thus eliminating any chance the GOP has of gaining a filibuster-proof majority in the senate.

I must hasten to add here that I'm not factoring in a potentially significant backlash to Bush's liberal policies. However, referring to Bush's controversial immigration amnesty program with which I also disagree, Polipundit writes:
I hope these horrible immigration "reforms" die quickly in Congress.  Otherwise I will be forced to reconsider my support for the president and I'm sure millions of other conservatives will too.
Here's hoping conservatives like Poli won't bolt en masse from the President's re-election effort if we can't pursuade Bush to track back to the right.  That could very well end up producing a President Dean or President Clark.  God forbid!!

posted at 8:10pm 01/09/04

Respond to this post

Link to this post


Harkin endorses Dean

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin endorsed Howard Dean today.  I'm very happy to hear this news. Dean's been under fire lately, and his poll numbers have been dropping as a result.  Harkin's endorsement is big for at least two reasons.  First, Dean needed a positive story to help shift the focus on him from his vulnerabilities. Second, since Harkin is an extrememly popular democrat in Iowa, this endorsement should wrap up the caucus for Dean there.

Clark's momentum has been chipping away at Dean's front-runner status.  This is a good thing for republicans as long as he doesn't wrest the nomination from Dean. Harkin's decision will make a Clark upset less likely.

Before this development, I had begun to worry that Dean might have peaked too early and was in danger of being overtaken by Clark.  I'm a little less concerned now.  Nevertheless, I see a long, contentious nominating process looming.  I'll be rooting for Dean to prevail, hoping he'll be badly weakened by Clark's rise and short on cash after spending a ton of it fending off the General.

I say this not because I'm worried that a strong Dean, or a strong Clark for that matter, would beat Bush in November.  I am just hoping for a landslide - the bigger the better - which will create Bush coattails long enough to usher in a filibuster-proof Senate.

posted at 4:20pm 01/09/04

Respond to this post

Link to this post