It's still a bit early, so I'll chime in w/ my prediction so y'all can save it and chide me in November or marvel at my prescience.

What I see so far:

Kerry still has yet to define himself, or if he has, the mainstream media aren't buying it and reporting it. Given the media's well documented left leaning, I'm forced to conclude the former. That's bad news.

Nevertheless, Kerry will have a respectable showing. He will win:
Mass
Maine
Vermont

handily.

I also think he has a good shot at:
Conn
probably Oregon, maybe Washington. I don't think he'll get both.

The "battleground" states:

Florida- Won't even be close. Gore was close as the incumbent. Won't happen this time. Bush has a good track record, and medicare reform. Kerry's got nothing. Dems are wasting resources in this state.

Where I think things may be very close this year is:
Pennsylvania- The east will go w/ Kerry, but the central and west portions are up for grabs. I tend to think that Bush's stand on steel would help him here (despite the spin the dems will try) but Kerry's wife has some presence here. Will they view her as a trampish widow? or giver her their support? That's the interesting question, and why this is the interesting state.

California- Conceded by many to the dems, but Arnold is having a good time getting his agenda across in CA. If he stumps for Bush, along w/ the latino vote, this will be surprisingly close.

New York- Here the Republicans get a break w/ their convention. Guilliani and Bloomberg vs Hillary et al. Again a very close call.

Ohio- Ok, three posters who lean toward the Dems are prominent on this board. That and my own reading says Ohio is in disarray. Frankly, w/ news stories from Cincy, Cleveland and my hometown, I'd say Ohio has the perception of being the rubes that TV would have us believe. Thank you NEA. :rolleyes: Too bad, I hate to see such a rapid decline. Anyway, I'm not convinced Ohio goes dem, but it is close. It will buck the trend: Republicans win w/o Ohio. Curiously in a rare event, Dems could take Ohio while Michigan goes to Repubs.

NM- Quirky state. I don't think Dems win, but will take worst case scenario especially w/ Richardson in office.

Missouri- They don't even like Gephardt. Bush wins.

Much of this will be decided on the economy. If the improving trend continues, Bush wins big. If it levels off, Bush still wins. If it plummets...then we gotta know why. War? Strictly economics? Alien invasion?

In summary, Bush wins handily, but EC keeps it close.

Potential Kerry wins (and EC votes):
CA- 55
CT- 7
DC- 3
DE- 3
IL- 21
ME- 4
MD-10
MA-12
NM-5
NY- 31
OH- 20
PA- 21
VT- 7
WA- 11

Total- 210

Even if OR and SD goes to Dems, Kerry still loses.

A Republican buddy of mine in Kansas City thinks Missouri will go Democrat. I was surprised when he said that. So you can only see 210 electorals for the dems, interesting.

No way SD goes Dem, not with Kerry.

I think your analysis is right on, however I think it unlikely Bush could win NY.

Ohio and Penn are the keys IMO. Bush wins one or both, he wins reelection.

The reason I think this is LA could feasibly got to Dem this time around. I don't think it will, but there is a good chance.

Good analysis though, I pray you're right.
:D

DrTorch Wrote:Florida- Won't even be close. Gore was close as the incumbent. Won't happen this time. Bush has a good track record, and medicare reform. Kerry's got nothing. Dems are wasting resources in this state.

Bush swung for the fences here and missed -- big time.

Many seniors already realize the new drug benefit is a joke. Bush's challenge is to try to keep more of them from finding that out.

The Bush administration has tried to be pretty clever about this. A few people will start receiving the new drug benefit right before the election. In theory, the media would then pump out all these stories about what a great new program this is.

In reality, the media is already onto the fact that the program sucks rocks -- and so are seniors. So I think the media will hit Bush hard about what a garbage program it is.

The AARP lost at least 80,000 members in protest because it endorsed the drug plan.

<a href='http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1089624768142583.xml' target='_blank'>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...24768142583.xml</a>

And drug prices aren't going down.

<a href='http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1088677837239200.xml' target='_blank'>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/...77837239200.xml</a>

Bush's hope is that he can keep his spin out there. Because, when the full program hits after the election, seniors are going to flip out. There will be hell to pay in '06.

Whats interresting is that the Dems have pulled out all the stops, sent out every slobering attack dog they could think of and most of the polls are still show it a dead heat.

Skipuno Wrote:Whats interresting is that the Dems have pulled out all the stops, sent out every slobering attack dog they could think of and most of the polls are still show it a dead heat.

What *I* find interesting is that John Kerry has yet to run an attack ad.

Most of Bush's ads have been attack ads.

John Kerry dosent have to run attack ads when he has Micheal Moore and a bunch of others to do that for him.

Skipuno Wrote:John Kerry dosent have to run attack ads when he has Micheal Moore and a bunch of others to do that for him.

That position might earn a bit more sympathy from me if Clear Channel and Fox News were suddenly out of business.

Bush isn't lacking for attack dogs.

Quote:Many seniors already realize the new drug benefit is a joke. Bush's challenge is to try to keep more of them from finding that out.

Are "many" seniors the same a "many" people we read about so much? Source, poll, anything validate this statement you just made?

80K out of 35 million, I'd take those odds.

Quote:And drug prices aren't going down.

And that's Bush's fault how? They passed the drug benefit, the government can't control what the market does with it's pricing.

So it's your position that if I give you a gift certificate for 20% off a dinner, and the restaurant raises the price of it's dinners by 15% it's my fault you aren't getting all the saving you originally would have?

All of this is a moot point in my opinion anyway. Bush never should have had the benefit passed to begin with.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:All of this is a moot point in my opinion anyway.  Bush never should have had the benefit passed to begin with.

Agreed.

If it wasn't for my belief that terrorism is one of the greatest threats this country has ever faced, I'd be voting third party again.

I think Bush wins the election and takes OH, FL, and PA. No way a Republican takes NY and CA.

Lethemeul Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:All of this is a moot point in my opinion anyway.  Bush never should have had the benefit passed to begin with.

Agreed.

If it wasn't for my belief that terrorism is one of the greatest threats this country has ever faced, I'd be voting third party again.

I think Bush wins the election and takes OH, FL, and PA. No way a Republican takes NY and CA.

If you're interested and willing to register for their site, the LA Times has an interactive electoral college map which is helpful for keeping track of how this year's race is shaking out. I can't use the tag function for posting as my browser is acting up, but the URL is: <a href='http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/election-test-fl,1,4869427.flash?coll=la-util-elect2004' target='_blank'>http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/...-util-elect2004</a>

Predictions right now are kind of pointless. What will happen in November in the competitive states will be determined by the national mood at that time. Between Iraq, the economy and any big surprises that may be out there, there's just no way to know right now what the mood will be.

I will report that I heard a new Bush attack radio ad this morning, and it takes the intensity to a new (lower) level. It's going to be an ugly fall.

BUSH will win easily. Kerry doesn't have a chance in HELL...


and that is very depressing.

Hey Schadenfreude, could you please quote something other than a Cleveland newspaper? I have to go to Cleveland a few times a year and would rather not be reminded abut it

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:Many seniors already realize the new drug benefit is a joke. Bush's challenge is to try to keep more of them from finding that out.

Are "many" seniors the same a "many" people we read about so much? Source, poll, anything validate this statement you just made?

80K out of 35 million, I'd take those odds.

I said many and avoided use of the word "most" because I don't know precisely how many.

The only question in my mind is whether or not most seniors will catch on to how awful that plan is before the election.

I remain supremely confident most seniors will grow to see the plan as a joke and hate it with the intensity of 10,000 suns. The only question is when.

Quote:

Quote:And drug prices aren't going down.

And that's Bush's fault how? They passed the drug benefit, the government can't control what the market does with it's pricing.

Virtually every other industrialized nation in the world has lower drug prices than America. I'm talking half off, or more, for virtually everything.

It's obvious government can do a whole hell of a lot.

Government could set price controls.

Government could free up the market even more than it already is by allowing consumers to buy drugs from whoever the hell they want -- such as Canadian pharmacists.

Or, government could use its market power to negotiate directly with the drug companies for real discounts.

Bush's plan doesn't do any of that. It has no price controls. It prohibits the federal government from doing anything at all to influence prices -- such as using its market power to buy in discount. And it doesn't clear the way for importation. In fact, Tommy Thompon has actively fought importation from Canada.

Quote:All of this is a moot point in my opinion anyway.&nbsp; Bush never should have had the benefit passed to begin with.

The plan is so bad, I don't think it does anyone any good -- unless you own stock in a drug company.

Socko Wiethe Wrote:If you're interested and willing to register for their site, the LA Times has an interactive electoral college map which is helpful for keeping track of how this year's race is shaking out.

I was lookin' for one of those. Thanks for pointing it out.

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bush's plan doesn't do any of that. It has no price controls. It prohibits the federal government from doing anything at all to influence prices -- such as using its market power to buy in discount. And it doesn't clear the way for importation. In fact, Tommy Thompon has actively fought importation from Canada.

The only thing you left out was the part about how the administration deliberately lied to Congress about the cost of the program, squelching the mid-level administrator who had the real cost estimates before he could get the figures out there before the vote was taken.

Reason No. 99 why these clowns need to be shown the door.

Socko Wiethe Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:Bush's plan doesn't do any of that. It has no price controls. It prohibits the federal government from doing anything at all to influence prices -- such as using its market power to buy in discount. And it doesn't clear the way for importation. In fact, Tommy Thompon has actively fought importation from Canada.

The only thing you left out was the part about how the administration deliberately lied to Congress about the cost of the program, squelching the mid-level administrator who had the real cost estimates before he could get the figures out there before the vote was taken.

Well, there's just so much. :laugh:

Reason No. 100

Cheney went over to the CIA over 13 times to look over the Iraq intel and to twist some arms to make sure it came out the wasy HE wanted. A frightening individual this Cheneyburton is. The easiest way to hide a lie is in the open and they have no qualms with lying to us.

Quote:I remain supremely confident most seniors will grow to see the plan as a joke and hate it with the intensity of 10,000 suns. The only question is when.

Given everything else you "know for sure" and are "supremely confident in" I won't be losing any sleep. :rolleyes:

Quote:Virtually every other industrialized nation in the world has lower drug prices than America. I'm talking half off, or more, for virtually everything.

Because virtually every other idustrialized nation doesn't spend what American companies do on R&D. They also use tax payer subsidies to drive down those costs, aka socialized medicine. France, Britain, Germany and France are all in a huge crisis right now because of the costs of the government run medical programs.

Quote:Government could set price controls.

Ah, sure they could. And then companies could cut R&D spending to make up for what they're losing.

What would make more sense is for there to be a crack down, or eliminate, third-party payments. In 1992, third parties covered only 38 percent of full-time employees’ spending on medicines; in 2001, it reached 88 percent. When patients pay a set co-pay, no matter what the cost of the drug, there is no incentive to choose a less expensive drug. If patients paid for their drugs and "voted" with their wallets by purchasing generic drugs as opposed to the big name brands, prices would have to fall. People can influence the market, they don't need the government holding their hand.

The problem with you libs is you can't think outside the government box. Government must do this, government must do that. How bout you get off your arses and make something happen. Consumers run the markets, you'd be surprised what a little personal responsibility and inititive will do.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:When patients pay a set co-pay

How many health plans that you know of have the patients setting up the criteria?