Electoral Vote Projections

[Kepler]

Zogby's Ten States To Watch:
CO: 49-45 Kerry (?)
NM: 49-44 Bush (?)
OH: 47-42 Bush (?)


NM is within the bounds of possibility, especially if polls are undercounting the Hispanic electorate. The other two look *way* off -- so much so that I'd say the real results will be exactly the opposite. But as you say, right now it's a total crap shoot.

[Red Cloud]

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.
I doubt it. See also 1960.

[firstpusk]

I doubt it. See also 1960.

...we don't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more.

[Red Cloud]

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 Um, for the record, Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc. are not part of the GOP. Rush and Savage are entertainers, Hannity is ostensibly a news-man in the evening, and he has a radio entertainment show in the afternoon.

But the news ain't supposed to be entertaining.

"Can I get me a hunting license here?"

[firstpusk]

You can call Hannity a lot of things but news-man would be among the most inaccurate. Spews-man would be more on the mark.

[Red Cloud]

Today's Zogby 10. Remember, these changes are over the course of a single day in the same poll.
CO: 48-47 Kerry (+3 for Bush)
FL: 48-47 Bush (+3 for Kerry)
IA: 47-44 Bush (+1 for Bush)
MI: 52-44 Kerry (+2 for Bush)
MN: 48-43 Kerry (+5 for Kerry)
NV: 50-44 Bush (+2 for Bush)
NM: 50-42 Bush (+3 for Bush)
OH: 46-45 Bush (+4 for Kerry)
PA: 48-45 Kerry (+1 for Kerry)
WI: 48-46 Bush (+2 for Kerry)

I don't know what the MoE is, but those MN and OH swings seem a bit suspect.

[Red Cloud]

You can call Hannity a lot of things but news-man would be among the most inaccurate. Spews-man would be more on the mark.Put your hate aside for a second before considering your remarks, kindly. I'd consider Alan Colmes and Larry King newsmen too.

[Milmo]

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.


Some of the justifications for challenges will continue to include uncounted ballots as evidence of discrimination or just vote rigging. Informed members of this board will remember that an MIT study of voting technologies after 2000 showed that the most accurate technology, optical scan, still produced error rates by voters (multiple circles filled in, no circles filled in, marks to faint to be read) of 2.6% of all ballots cast. Punch card rates were 3.1% and computer voting was 3.0%.

So in any state where the margin of victory is less than 2.6%, even with the best technology, we can expect ballot error to be in excess of that margin, thus legitimizing, falsesly, challenges and recounts.

We used to understand and accept human error as a natural component of the voting process, now it's an excuse for another variant of class and race warfare.

[Kepler]

I doubt it. See also 1960.
If I may say something nice about Richard Nixon, for perhaps the only time (and indeed perhaps the only time he deserved it), conceding in 1960 was without doubt one of the most singular instances of a candidate putting his country's interests ahead of his own and his party's.

[firstpusk]

Put your hate aside for a second before considering your remarks, kindly. I'd consider Alan Colmes and Larry King newsmen too.

Larry King is a pitchman and entertainer. Colmes is a stiff that gets a recharge of formaldehyde just before each time he goes on camera. Hannity is simply beneath contempt - the whining six year old of the I-can-yell-louder than-you talking heads.

[Kepler]

Ahem. To return to the thread topic...

It's only getting closer. Here are RCPs summaries of the battlegrounds as of this morning: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html#fl

FL: B +1.0%
OH: B + 0.8%
PA: K + 3.3%
WI: B + 1.8%
IA: B +3.5%
MN: K +0.3%
MI: K +3.9%
NM: B +3.6%
NH: K +2.4%
AR: B +2.0%
HI: B +0.9%

[unofan]

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.
I never said the Dems did. I said the GOP didn't.

Quit putting words into my mouth and reading more into it than what was said.

[unofan]

How are multiple/no circles filled in considered a voting "error"?

If you vote for multiple candidates, your vote is invalid. That's not a fault of the technology or voting system in place, but the person.

And likewise, some people leave circles blank on purpose. It's called abstaining, either because you don't like the candidates, aren't informed enough, or whatever. That's not only not a voting error, but a legit voting practice.

[firstpusk]

How are multiple/no circles filled in considered a voting "error"?

If you vote for multiple candidates, your vote is invalid. That's not a fault of the technology or voting system in place, but the person.

And likewise, some people leave circles blank on purpose. It's called abstaining, either because you don't like the candidates, aren't informed enough, or whatever. That's not only not a voting error, but a legit voting practice.

People make mistakes on their ballots. With optical scanning they may have an opportunity to get another ballot to correct it. The machine can be set up to kick invalid ballots out immediately. I have seen this happen a number of times in my precinct over the years. So in a way, it can be the fault of the voting technology.

[Bob Gray]

Ahem. To return to the thread topic...

It's only getting closer. Here are RCPs summaries of the battlegrounds as of this morning: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html#fl

FL: B +1.0%
OH: B + 0.8%
PA: K + 3.3%
WI: B + 1.8%
IA: B +3.5%
MN: K +0.3%
MI: K +3.9%
NM: B +3.6%
NH: K +2.4%
AR: B +2.0%
HI: B +0.9%

Thanks. We've got plenty of other threads where people can yell at each other about the 2000 election, etc.

[French Rage]

I never said the Dems did. I said the GOP didn't.

Quit putting words into my mouth and reading more into it than what was said.

Well, upon re-reading everything I guess I can see that I read into what wasnt there, so I apologize.

[pgb-ohio]

...some people leave circles blank on purpose. It's called abstaining, either because you don't like the candidates, aren't informed enough, or whatever. That's not only not a voting error, but a legit voting practice. I strongly agree, and would add the following: If responsible people are going to continue to argue that abstention = error, then every race should include a "none of the above" option. IMO, the right to withhold support from all listed candidates is an integral part of the right to vote.

[Craig P.]

I have intentionally refused to vote for any candidate in the past, and it would **** me off if that meant that my entire ballot got voided. Maybe I don't feel that I can cast an informed vote in a particular race, or maybe none of the candidates appeals to me so the only protest statement I can make is not to vote for any of them.

[Red Cloud]

Messed around a little with the electoral college calculator.

Here's another way of looking at this election...

Every state that voted for Gore in 2000 also voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Of those, DC, HI, IA, MA, MN, NY, OR, RI, WA, and WI also voted for Dukakis in 1988, giving them 4 straight elections since the Reagan landslide - and MN voted for Carter twice and Mondale since the Nixon landslide. You'd expect that those 10 would be in the bag considering the track record.

Assuming that states that have been won by the same party three times in a row will vote the same way, Kerry has 260 electorals and Bush has 135, with 14 states that have voted for some kind of combination of Bush, Clinton, Dole, Gore, and Bush.

All of the states who voted for Bush I, Dole, and Bush II are voting for Bush this go round - they're all among the "no question" rank.

About half of the ones who voted for Clinton twice and Gore are in play - MN, HI, NM, WI, IA, PA, OR, MI, and NJ have all been described recently as areas where the President is either in serious contention or even ahead of Kerry. That's 5 of 10 states who have voted Democratic in all 4 elections since the Reagan landslide, plus the only one who has voted Democratic in all 7 elections since the Nixon landslide. Meanwhile, the longest streaks among solid Republican states - AK, IN, OK, ND, SD, NE, ID, KS, VA, UT, and WY having voted GOP since the Johnson landslide - are all expected to continue.

Also, 8 of the 14 party-changing states are solid Bush states this go round.

It does seem to me that Kerry is still playing defense against an incumbent.

[Red Cloud]

Today's Zogby 10:
CO: 49-47 Kerry (+1 for Kerry)
FL: 49-45 Bush (+3 for Bush)
IA: 45-45 (+3 for Kerry)
MI: 49-44 Kerry (+3 for Bush)
MN: 46-44 Kerry (+3 for Bush)
NV: 49-46 Bush (+3 for Kerry)
NM: 48-43 Bush (+3 for Kerry)
OH: 46-44 Bush (+1 for Bush)
PA: 49-45 Kerry (+1 for Kerry)
WI: 48-46 Kerry (+4 for Kerry)