Electoral Vote Projections

[Red Cloud]

Haven't the DNC pulled ads from CO, NV, MO, and AR? The only state out of these three i see going to kerry is NV.
The deal in CO is that the state has a positively suicidal electoral vote dispersal plan up for consideration on 02 November - and it has a surprising amount of support. If it passes, it'll deal out the Centennial State's electors proportionally... which more than likely gives 5 electors to one candidate and 4 to the other, giving CO a net voice of 1 elector.

Coloradans need to reject this garbage if they value their position as a semi-decent electoral pot. Nebraska and Maine are doing it the right way.

[Kepler]

The deal in CO is that the state has a positively suicidal electoral vote dispersal plan up for consideration on 02 November - and it has a surprising amount of support. If it passes, it'll deal out the Centennial State's electors proportionally... which more than likely gives 5 electors to one candidate and 4 to the other, giving CO a net voice of 1 elector.
Hmm. As much as I'd like that (if all the states did it), I'm amazed CO would have the chutzpah to go it alone, thus assuring they'll be ignored from now on. Are they really just taking one for the team, or is there some convoluted Machiavellian logic to this that I'm missing?

But think about how great that would be if *every* state did it. We'd preserve the electoral college and the integrity of state involvement in the selection of the executive, but all the red/blue nonsense would disappear overnight.

BTW, I *hate* having electors awarded by majority in a Congressional district (like ME and NE). Congress has already been soiled by gerrymandering -- we do not want the presidency to ride on that sort of crap (pulled by both parties).

[French Rage]

The House and Senate would go to a vote - each state getting one vote. Here's who controls the state delegations in each house of Congress.
House
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawai'i, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Totals: GOP 30, Dem 15, Split 5

Senate
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawai'i, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Totals: GOP 20, Dems 18, Split 12

Notes: Nebraska has one vacant seat in the House. Vermont's lone representative, Bernie Sanders, is an independent, however, he has endorsed the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Georgia also has a split Senate delegation, but the Democrat is Zell Miller, who has shown distinct public support for the Bush-Cheney ticket. Vermont's Senate delegation consists of a Democrat and an Independent, Jim Jeffords, who caucuses with the Democrats.

So a 279-279 result probably re-elects Bush-Cheney, although looking at the Senate, there's potential for a Democrat victory there, which could give us an odd Bush-Edwards combination.

As per the election, it looks like the swing states this year are AR, CO, FL, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, OH, PA, TN, WV, and WI.

Also close are AZ, NC, and VA on the "should vote Bush" side, and CT, HI, ME, NH, NM, OR, and WA on the "should vote Kerry" side. These states are in play, but there's definitely a heavy favorite.

All of the other states are in the bag either one way or another (27 states plus DC).

I believe the Senate votes individually, not by state, and the Senators are sworn in before the electoral college votes, so it depends on what happens this November.

[U2Bad1]

The deal in CO is that the state has a positively suicidal electoral vote dispersal plan up for consideration on 02 November - and it has a surprising amount of support. If it passes, it'll deal out the Centennial State's electors proportionally... which more than likely gives 5 electors to one candidate and 4 to the other, giving CO a net voice of 1 elector.

Coloradans need to reject this garbage if they value their position as a semi-decent electoral pot. Nebraska and Maine are doing it the right way.


My question is, would that go into effect for this election or next election (if passed) ?

[Robskillz]

My question is, would that go into effect for this election or next election (if passed) ?

I'm pretty sure it's for this election.

[Rimbaud]

No kidding? I hadn't heard that. That poll is still cited however in news articles.

Zogby tends to be the most reliable IMO.
I was watching FoxNews and they cited either the Times or Newsweek's poll (both have Bush 10+ up) over their own poll, which had Bush up by a few. I found that a little disturbing that they wouldn't give out their numbers, which show a much closer race.

[Red Cloud]

My question is, would that go into effect for this election or next election (if passed) ? Strangely, it's set to go into effect immediately and retroactive to the current election.

[nubobcat]

Hmm. As much as I'd like that (if all the states did it), I'm amazed CO would have the chutzpah to go it alone, thus assuring they'll be ignored from now on. Are they really just taking one for the team, or is there some convoluted Machiavellian logic to this that I'm missing?

But think about how great that would be if *every* state did it. We'd preserve the electoral college and the integrity of state involvement in the selection of the executive, but all the red/blue nonsense would disappear overnight.

BTW, I *hate* having electors awarded by majority in a Congressional district (like ME and NE). Congress has already been soiled by gerrymandering -- we do not want the presidency to ride on that sort of crap (pulled by both parties).

Some California millionaire is sponsoring the campaign in Colorado. He is a former Gore supporter and good friend of Soros. Not sure why he picked colorado to do it in. Of course the republicans could pass the same thing in California and the dems would wish they never thought of it.

[Clifton]

I've mentioned this before, but there are very serious constitutional issues with the Colorado initiate. Quite simply, the Constitution grants state legistlatures the power to divvy up electoral votes as they see fit, and the plain language would appear to exclude public referendums.

In other words, pray that it doesn't come down to Colorado.

[nanookfan]

I was watching FoxNews and they cited either the Times or Newsweek's poll (both have Bush 10+ up) over their own poll, which had Bush up by a few. I found that a little disturbing that they wouldn't give out their numbers, which show a much closer race.

I wonder if the Time or Newsweek poll is rigged. After all, these publications are at best left-leaning, and it could be that they are trying to motivate the left to get out the vote, and try to convince the right to stay home by making them believe that it is not a close race.

Polls can be rigged pretty easily, and I don't put much stock in any of them.

[Red Cloud]

I wonder if the Time or Newsweek poll is rigged.
I'm beginning to wonder that too. The latest Newsweek swing state watch lists NJ as a swing state with Kerry at 43% and Bush at 39%, stating that the Kerry lead there was 20 points a month ago.

Essentially, I'm looking at the same electoral map we saw four years ago with three differences - NM and WI are red, NH is blue.

[Kepler]

I wonder if the Time or Newsweek poll is rigged. After all, these publications are at best left-leaning, and it could be that they are trying to motivate the left to get out the vote, and try to convince the right to stay home by making them believe that it is not a close race.
Well, my tin foil hat tells me that would just as likely suppress Dem turnout (if they were depressed that Bush's second term was a done deal).

I've seen some excellent conspiracy theories on the polls, however. My favorite is that Fox is artificially dampening Bush's numbers now so they can announce in late October that he's "surging ahead." Then, if he wins by more than an eyelash, it looks like a mandate.

I know it's an article of faith on the right that large corporate media outlets are leftist, but I just don't see it. Likewise, on Dem activist sites, they think the major media are completely beholden to Bush's corporate cronies, and I don't see that, either. I think the media at their best should be watchdogs, which means incumbents will always be mad at them.

[French Rage]

I'm beginning to wonder that too. The latest Newsweek swing state watch lists NJ as a swing state with Kerry at 43% and Bush at 39%, stating that the Kerry lead there was 20 points a month ago.

Essentially, I'm looking at the same electoral map we saw four years ago with three differences - NM and WI are red, NH is blue.

So if a poll shows Kerry doing unrealisiticly well, it's because they are left-leaning and want to make it looks like he's doing better than he is. If it shows Bush doing unrealisitcly well, it's because they are trying to get more Kerry people on the streets getting the vote out.

[Red Cloud]

So if a poll shows Kerry doing unrealisiticly well, it's because they are left-leaning and want to make it looks like he's doing better than he is. If it shows Bush doing unrealisitcly well, it's because they are trying to get more Kerry people on the streets getting the vote out.
Eh... not exactly. It could just as easily been erratic in the opposite direction.

There's good reason for the Bush swing - Kerry is running his campaign into the ground over this National Guard thing - but the numbers just don't add up. For example, Newsweek now reports Missouri to be a "solid Bush" state where just last week it was a swing state. Similar with New Jersey - it was previously "solid Kerry" where now it's a swing state. Huh?? There's a definite Bush bounce between Kerry's campaigning ineptitude over the last two weeks and the RNC, but come on.

[French Rage]

Eh... not exactly. It could just as easily been erratic in the opposite direction.

There's good reason for the Bush swing - Kerry is running his campaign into the ground over this National Guard thing - but the numbers just don't add up. For example, Newsweek now reports Missouri to be a "solid Bush" state where just last week it was a swing state. Similar with New Jersey - it was previously "solid Kerry" where now it's a swing state. Huh?? There's a definite Bush bounce between Kerry's campaigning ineptitude over the last two weeks and the RNC, but come on.

I agree. I'd give Bush a few points up on Kerry, but anything beyond that is unrealistic.

[Todd]

I wonder if the Time or Newsweek poll is rigged. After all, these publications are at best left-leaning, and it could be that they are trying to motivate the left to get out the vote, and try to convince the right to stay home by making them believe that it is not a close race.

Polls can be rigged pretty easily, and I don't put much stock in any of them.In this country, the only way to get more people out to vote is if you can convince them that it's very close and their vote might make a difference... unless their candidate is winning - in which case front-runners will still show up to be able to say they voted for the winner.

A large gap for either candidate supresses opposition turnout, making the polls self-fulfilling.

No way that, in this case, it's a left-inspired issue.

[Todd]

I was watching FoxNews and they cited either the Times or Newsweek's poll (both have Bush 10+ up) over their own poll, which had Bush up by a few. I found that a little disturbing that they wouldn't give out their numbers, which show a much closer race.How in the world would it surprise you that FoxNews would pick the poll numbers that most favor Bush?

[Kepler]

Mixed news today on Polling Report: http://www.pollingreport.com/consumer.htm#TIPP

The economic confidence measure dropped significantly, signalling that people aren't feeling that the economy is really improving. But OTOH, Bush is still riding the RNC boost to give him a stronger presidential leadership index.

Hmm, I wonder if that really is a mixed message. "The situation is getting worse and we hold you more responsible." I mean, wouldn't the worst combination be leadership of 100 and confidence of 0? "You are leading resolutely... in the wrong direction."

[firstpusk]

...I mean, wouldn't the worst combination be leadership of 100 and confidence of 0? "You are leading resolutely... in the wrong direction."

That's our president in a nutshell.

[Todd]

The House and Senate would go to a vote - each state getting one vote. Here's who controls the state delegations in each house of Congress.
House
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawai'i, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Totals: GOP 30, Dem 15, Split 5

Senate
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawai'i, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
Totals: GOP 20, Dems 18, Split 12

Notes: Nebraska has one vacant seat in the House. Vermont's lone representative, Bernie Sanders, is an independent, however, he has endorsed the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Georgia also has a split Senate delegation, but the Democrat is Zell Miller, who has shown distinct public support for the Bush-Cheney ticket. Vermont's Senate delegation consists of a Democrat and an Independent, Jim Jeffords, who caucuses with the Democrats.

So a 279-279 result probably re-elects Bush-Cheney, although looking at the Senate, there's potential for a Democrat victory there, which could give us an odd Bush-Edwards combination.

As per the election, it looks like the swing states this year are AR, CO, FL, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, OH, PA, TN, WV, and WI.

Also close are AZ, NC, and VA on the "should vote Bush" side, and CT, HI, ME, NH, NM, OR, and WA on the "should vote Kerry" side. These states are in play, but there's definitely a heavy favorite.

All of the other states are in the bag either one way or another (27 states plus DC).See... Bush-Edwards... Isn't that fun?

What if the Dems take back enough seats to even threaten the party line house vote for Bush?

How about the squealing if CO drops off K278, making it 269-269, but the CO initiative passes, swapping 4 votes back to Kerry retroactively, making it K273-B265?

If it weren't so serious, it would be really funny.

"What if you're on a ship in the middle of the ocean... and you want to receive communion and it's Pentecost Sunday... the laaast day... and the Chaplain goes into a coma... but you wanted to receive... but then you cross the International Date Line..."
- George Carlin