Electoral Vote Projections

[Jason A]

Looks like Bush is relatively safe in Colorado. He has polled at 49 or higher in six of the last eight polls taken there, according to this Web site: http://2.004k.com/state/?s=Colorado

[trucker]

Electoral-Vote.com currently has Kerry with 257 electoral votes and Bush with 254 and Florida is the only state dead even. If this ever held up we could have a replay of 2000.


http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Red Cloud]

Two new polls.

FLORIDA
Insider Advantage: 46-46
Nader with 2%

HAWAI'I
Honolulu Advertiser: 43.4-42.6 Bush
There is another poll result I have seen elsewhere listed as being a Ward Research poll which had it 43-43, which is basically the same as above. If they're the same poll, it may be anomalous (like the one seen earlier this cycle in Maryland). If they're not, Hawai'i may be up for grabs.

[Red Cloud]

Here's a situation where the popular vote might actually come into play - a 269-269 electoral count.

We've all assumed that a 269-269 electoral count favors the President, since the current House is Republican and the new House is expected to also be Republican. However, if Kerry manages to win the popular vote, which, according to current polls is iffy at best, there'd probably be a massive media push, parroted by We The Sheeple, for the House to choose Kerry based on the popular vote. I'm not saying it would be without merit, I just guarantee that the impetus would largely be driven by the talking heads.

I'm finding more and more entirely possible permutations where 269-269 is a reality, too.

[bronconick]

I think Bush would be helped by the fact that even including a possible popular vote loss, he is still going to win a majority of the states, and those state delegations in the House can say they are following the will of the state they represent.

[Kepler]

I think Bush would be helped by the fact that even including a possible popular vote loss, he is still going to win a majority of the states, and those state delegations in the House can say they are following the will of the state they represent.
If it reaches the House, it's Bush -- no way does a GOP House member step out of line. The only chance for a "popular will" choice would be if an elector changed his or her vote in order to ratify the popular vote. The likelihood of that is a matter of personal, idiosyncratic psychology.

In 2000, there was media "rabble, rabble, rabble" generated by the GOP in advance of the election in preparation for pressure on electors in the event of a narrow Gore EV win coupled with a Bush popular vote win. That obviously evaporated when the result turned out to be the opposite. I'm sure both campaigns already have slick ad campaigns ready this time.

[Todd]

Here's a situation where the popular vote might actually come into play - a 269-269 electoral count.

We've all assumed that a 269-269 electoral count favors the President, since the current House is Republican and the new House is expected to also be Republican. However, if Kerry manages to win the popular vote, which, according to current polls is iffy at best, there'd probably be a massive media push, parroted by We The Sheeple, for the House to choose Kerry based on the popular vote. I'm not saying it would be without merit, I just guarantee that the impetus would largely be driven by the talking heads.

I'm finding more and more entirely possible permutations where 269-269 is a reality, too.Or, with Robb of WV, 269-268...

[Todd]

If it reaches the House, it's Bush -- no way does a GOP House member step out of line. The only chance for a "popular will" choice would be if an elector changed his or her vote in order to ratify the popular vote. The likelihood of that is a matter of personal, idiosyncratic psychology.

In 2000, there was media "rabble, rabble, rabble" generated by the GOP in advance of the election in preparation for pressure on electors in the event of a narrow Gore EV win coupled with a Bush popular vote win. That obviously evaporated when the result turned out to be the opposite. I'm sure both campaigns already have slick ad campaigns ready this time.Remember back in the day... when the thought of the election results being in doubt beyond "early the next morning" didn't even enter into people's minds, other than the occasional recount in a minor election?

After 2000, we're now all prepared - and expecting - that the actual decision will be fought out in the courts (and in public opinion) after Election Day sets the playing field.

How sad is that?

[Matt1331]

How sad is that?

Very.

It wouldn't be so sad if the fight was to actually get every legal vote counted, but instead each side just wants their vote (legal, non-legal, pregnant, etc...) counted.

The lawyers have beaten the citizens to the booth.

Matt

[Bob Gray]

Remember back in the day... when the thought of the election results being in doubt beyond "early the next morning" didn't even enter into people's minds, other than the occasional recount in a minor election?

After 2000, we're now all prepared - and expecting - that the actual decision will be fought out in the courts (and in public opinion) after Election Day sets the playing field.

How sad is that?
It's very sad, but not surprising given the direction of today's society. People still often mouth the right words, but as my dad used to say, actions speak louder than words.

I think in many years when historians look back on the 2000 election, the biggest long term effect of the election won't be that Bush became president rather than Gore, but that the whole concept of fighting the election beyond election day went from being something most people never even gave a thought to, to something that is widely expected unless elections are landslides. Once the lawyers get a grip on this type of thing, it's very hard to get them to let go, which I think in the long term is a very bad thing for the American electoral process.

[Kepler]

I think in many years when historians look back on the 2000 election, the biggest long term effect of the election won't be that Bush became president rather than Gore, but that the whole concept of fighting the election beyond election day went from being something most people never even gave a thought to, to something that is widely expected unless elections are landslides.
Possibly, and that would be sad. But there may possibly be a very positive effect of 2000. I think it proved beyond doubt that many, many people who have the theoretical right to vote either are denied the vote or have their votes miscounted or not at all. And in saying that I don't mean by explicit, intentional, conspiratorial means, but just by bureaucratic inefficiencies and errors. Does anyone remember what the "expected fail rate" on punch ballots was in 2000 -- about 5 expected failures to count per thousand ballots. That's on correctly-punched ballots, not mistakes, hanging chads, or whatever. In other words, any election result decided by less than half of one percent was literally arbitrary -- it was within the margin of error of the counting methodology.

Well, 2000 woke us up to this, and I believe it has started in motion changes that will eventually result in everyone's vote being counted accurately. We certainly have the technology to do all the voting exactly with a perfect audit trail -- ATMs process far more, and more complex, transactions every day. It will take some time -- say, 8-12 years -- but eventually we will have, for the first time since town meetings, real counts and real results. That's something valuable.

[Red Cloud]

In 2000, there was media "rabble, rabble, rabble" generated by the GOP in advance of the election in preparation for pressure on electors in the event of a narrow Gore EV win coupled with a Bush popular vote win. That obviously evaporated when the result turned out to be the opposite. I'm sure both campaigns already have slick ad campaigns ready this time. The only "rabble, rabble, rabble" I remember was from the Gore campaign constantly reminding the GOP that the electoral college, not the popular vote, elected the President, when polls looked like Bush would take the popular vote and have Gore winning the electoral college.

Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.

[Markt]

NH poll says 50-41 Kerry (with a Republican-slanted sample)...

http://www.fosters.com/October_2004/10.25.04/news/ap_pol1025k.asp

[Kepler]

NH poll says 50-41 Kerry (with a Republican-slanted sample)...

http://www.fosters.com/October_2004/10.25.04/news/ap_pol1025k.asp
That may not be slanted compared to state registrations. NH is highly GOP.

[Red Cloud]

My understanding is that IA and NH end up being swing states in presidential elections almost every go-round because of the exposure of the challenger during the first-in-the-nation primaries. Kerry (and the other Dems, for that matter) deluged the Granite and Hawkeye states with attention and advertisements back in January.

[Markt]

That may not be slanted compared to state registrations. NH is highly GOP.

True...

[Red Cloud]

A second poll is now saying that Hawai'i is close, with SMS Research claiming a 46-45 Bush spread in the Aloha State. This pretty much puts Hawai'i in play, though the 5 hour time difference will probably help Kerry since he's going to win quite a few states in the Northeast as soon as the polls close.

Speaking of timing of polls closing - here's hoping that the networks allow for states with more than one time-zone to not be called until after all of the polls in the state close. This was one of the numerous problems in Florida in 2000. Most of the networks called the state prior to the close of polls in the panhandle.

Zogby's Ten States To Watch:
CO: 49-45 Kerry (?)
FL: 49-46 Bush
IA: 47-45 Bush
MI: 52-42 Kerry
MN: 46-45 Kerry
NV: 48-44 Bush
NM: 49-44 Bush (?)
OH: 47-42 Bush (?)
PA: 47-45 Kerry
WI: 48-45 Bush

CO and NM look off. Polls out of Ohio are incredibly whacked out right now. Ohio University has Kerry up by 6 according to electoral-vote.com. That's an 11 point difference in polls. I don't think we're going to have any real idea of what's happening in Ohio until 02 November, maybe even later.

Ohio is definitely the front-runner for this year's "Florida."

[unofan]

If it reaches the House, it's Bush -- no way does a GOP House member step out of line. The only chance for a "popular will" choice would be if an elector changed his or her vote in order to ratify the popular vote. The likelihood of that is a matter of personal, idiosyncratic psychology.

In 2000, there was media "rabble, rabble, rabble" generated by the GOP in advance of the election in preparation for pressure on electors in the event of a narrow Gore EV win coupled with a Bush popular vote win. That obviously evaporated when the result turned out to be the opposite. I'm sure both campaigns already have slick ad campaigns ready this time.
Agree with RPIRED,

Before the 2000 election, I remember being distinctly prepared for a Gore EV victory and a Bush popular one, and indeed the Dems were making sure to point out it was the EV's that counted. The rabble rabble rabble was coming from the left, not the right.

I don't remember the GOP threatening to try to have the election overturned in that case or being ready to coerce people to switch it. That's a nice job trying to spin something that happened 4 years ago, though.

[French Rage]

Agree with RPIRED,

Before the 2000 election, I remember being distinctly prepared for a Gore EV victory and a Bush popular one, and indeed the Dems were making sure to point out it was the EV's that counted. The rabble rabble rabble was coming from the left, not the right.

I don't remember the GOP threatening to try to have the election overturned in that case or being ready to coerce people to switch it. That's a nice job trying to spin something that happened 4 years ago, though.

Whoa whoa whoa. The Democrats never threatened to have the election overturned becuase Gore got a higher popular vote while bush got more EVs. The Democrat's lawsuits involved voter fraud, and the GOP would have done the exact same thing if they were in the Democrat's shoes. The only mention of popular vs EV was maybe from a few pundits or people on the street, at most people bemoaning this being one of the cases where EV didnt reflect PV, but no one threatened any legal action because of it, because everyone knew that was the way it worked.

That's a nice job trying to spin something that didnt happen 4 years ago, though.

[Kepler]

I don't remember the GOP threatening to try to have the election overturned in that case or being ready to coerce people to switch it.
Then your memory is selective. I recall the radio yappers ginning up pressure that electors were "duty bound to respect the will of the people and not some technicality." The usual faux folksy populism. Talk about spin! I really can't tell whether you guys actually convince yourselves of this stuff, or whether it's intentional "warfare by other means." Maybe that's the genius of it -- keep us guessing. :D