Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 With the electoral college, the election always comes down to a numbers game and this year is no different. The LA Times has a great feature on their site that has an interactive map. The reds are Bush, the blues are Kerry and the whites are swing states. You can turn any state to white, red or blue and see how it effects the race. It has the latest poll numbers from each state as well. Basically, Wisconsin, Florida, NH and Ohio are very, very close. Assuming that each candidate wins where he is currently ahead, the election comes down to Florida. NH is a dead tie but it has too few votes to send either over the top. Florida has one poll showing Bush ahead and an overlapping poll showing Kerry ahead. The latest poll in Ohio has Kerry ahead if only by the barest of margins. The latest in Wisconsin has Bush ahead, but just barely. The same is true in New Mexico. The result is that it all comes down to finicky Florida once again. I give Bush the edge for now. Kerry can only win if he takes Ohio and Florida while Bush can lose Ohio and still win if he gets Florida. His brother is the governor, it is still a southern state so I have to give Bush the ege there. One of the closest scenarios is if Kerry wins Ohio and Wisconsin but loses Florida. He is ahead in Ohio and only behind in Wisconsin by 2%. It could happen. That would put the entire election into the hands of New Hampshire which is dead even at 47%-47% with 6% undecided. What this means is that if Kerry loses NH, he can't win the election without Florida as the only way to overcome losing Florida is to sweep Wisconsin, Ohio and NH. If Kerry somehow pulls it off in Florida but loses in Ohio and Wisconsin, once again, it all comes down to NH. He who wins there, wins it all. If Kerry does win Florida, Bush is in the same predicament of having to sweep Wisconsin, Ohio and NH. Here is my favorite scenario just because it will result in Bush being declared the winner before midnight EST but by dawn the next day Kerry will emerge as the winner leaving the entire media speechless. I call this the "N-state" theory as it involves states starting with the letter "N". It goes like this: Kerry loses Florida and Wisconsin so that he can't get the Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Ohio sweep needed to overcome the loss of Florida although he does win in Ohio and New Hampshire. As the nation, at least the eastern half, goes to bed, it is clear that Bush is going to win. However, during the night, the late returns form western states Nevada and New Mexico start coming in and despite narrow Bush leads in the polls before election day, Kerry nabs both of them. Why not? New Mexico has voted for the dem. candidate in '92, '96 and '00. Nevada is well within the margin of error and went for a democrat 3 out of the last 4 elections. In that scenario, Kerry uses New Hampshire, Nevada and New Mexico to overcome the loss of Florida and win 272-266. The "N" states rule over the states from lesser parts of the alphabet. The wild card in all of this is the number of new voter registrations. The polls are largely based on "likely voters" and to get in to that category so that you are contacted by a pollster, you have to have voted in some prior election. That means that these new voters are not really being figured into these polls. Accordingly, there is no reason to beleive that the polls are all that accurate in the states that are really close. Bottom line, I don't think I will go to bed that night having any idea who the winner is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Wow mickey, that is what I call a longggggggg post. maybe people should just go look for themselves at a pretty kool site that tracks the electroal race very fairly. In fact you will be happy to see that the site operator is a self described liberal, but he puts no slant on the numbers. Just plugs them in and lets the results speck for themselves. Here is the link: Electoral-Vote Tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 Wow mickey, that is what I call a longggggggg post. maybe people should just go look for themselves at a pretty kool site that tracks the electroal race very fairly. In fact you will be happy to see that the site operator is a self described liberal, but he puts no slant on the numbers. Just plugs them in and lets the results speck for themselves. Here is the link: Electoral-Vote Tracker 67967[/snapback] So does the LA Times site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 site's not working Rich........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Bastard Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 site's not working Rich........ 67998[/snapback] Double "http://" in the link. Try this: Rich's link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 So does the LA Times site. 67990[/snapback] yea, but nobody has any faith in what that rag puts out so I thought I would list this other site. As I mentioned previously, the guy who runs it is admittedly a lefty but so far I have found his data to be fair. Please, you really expect any normal human being to read the LA Times???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Double "http://" in the link. Try this: Rich's link 68002[/snapback] this link that was posted earlier in the week has a current date on it... does anyone know if it actually updated daily? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 site's not working Rich........ 67998[/snapback] Neither are responsible journalists at the LA Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alg Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I now live in Colorado, and I am seriously concerned about Prop 36. Success of this prop will divide CO electorit based on the popular vote. We could theoretically wait for a month of court battles to decide this outcome before declaring a winner. Its a bad move, mucking with constitutional balance for short term political gain. A state that does this loses influence in elections - period. I should mention that, apparently, this CO effort is being financed by a California Dem. (Funny how they are not doing this in CA.) Be carefull what you ask for. If CO splits the electorit look for New York and CA to have similar challenges in the coming years - by Reps. If they won in those states Democrates would not be able to elect another candidate for years - until Spanish becomes our predominant language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 If they won in those states Democrates would not be able to elect another candidate for years - until Spanish becomes our predominant language. 69796[/snapback] if the first part is true, then i am pretty sure the second part won't be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 It is pretty amazing Mick The scenario goes as follows.... 1. Hag marries billionaire. 2. Billionaire croaks. Hag gets cash. 3. Flip Flop wins a senate seat in wacko state and votes for trillions of dollars of tax increases. 4. Married Flip-Flop gets a divorce and marries billionaire Hag. 5. Flip Flop continues to vote for tax increases. 6. Flip Flop votes against 1st Iraq war. 7) Flip-Flop votes FOR current Iraq war. 8) Flip Flop is against current Iraq war. 9) Flip Flop, after a $10,000.00 haircut, tells us he is for the "middle class." 10) Flip Flop now has a "plan." And close to half of this country is either so stupid, brainwashed, naive or consumed by hate that they will vote for Flip Flop. Simply incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spidey Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I now live in Colorado, and I am seriously concerned about Prop 36. Success of this prop will divide CO electorit based on the popular vote. We could theoretically wait for a month of court battles to decide this outcome before declaring a winner. Its a bad move, mucking with constitutional balance for short term political gain. A state that does this loses influence in elections - period. I should mention that, apparently, this CO effort is being financed by a California Dem. (Funny how they are not doing this in CA.) Be carefull what you ask for. If CO splits the electorit look for New York and CA to have similar challenges in the coming years - by Reps. If they won in those states Democrates would not be able to elect another candidate for years - until Spanish becomes our predominant language. 69796[/snapback] Right the outcome of the election may not be know till after votes for the proposition are counted and than electoral votes divied up based on percentage. Cant wait to see the challenges in the courts if that passes and the race is deadlock with colorado throwing either over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I now live in Colorado, and I am seriously concerned about Prop 36. Success of this prop will divide CO electorit based on the popular vote. We could theoretically wait for a month of court battles to decide this outcome before declaring a winner. Its a bad move, mucking with constitutional balance for short term political gain. A state that does this loses influence in elections - period. Just think if all states took this approach. Could you imagine what campaigns would look like? Instead of a dozen swing states, you'd have a hundred swing electoral votes. Election 2000 would look painless compared to the fallout from such an electoral system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I now live in Colorado, and I am seriously concerned about Prop 36. Success of this prop will divide CO electorit based on the popular vote. We could theoretically wait for a month of court battles to decide this outcome before declaring a winner. Its a bad move, mucking with constitutional balance for short term political gain. A state that does this loses influence in elections - period. I should mention that, apparently, this CO effort is being financed by a California Dem. (Funny how they are not doing this in CA.) Be carefull what you ask for. If CO splits the electorit look for New York and CA to have similar challenges in the coming years - by Reps. If they won in those states Democrates would not be able to elect another candidate for years - until Spanish becomes our predominant language. 69796[/snapback] Ummmmmmmmmmmm... didn't the idiot Al Gore win the popular vote in the country? Or do you want to just choose the biggest democratic states so your guy could win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 And close to half of this country is either so stupid, brainwashed, naive or consumed by hate that they will vote for Flip Flop. Simply incredible. And close to half of this country is either so stupid, brainwashed or naive that they will vote for the other candidate no matter what. Simply incredible indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts