Electoral Vote Projections

[Kepler]

They've run a "our election is inevitable" strategy all along.
I think this is an excellent point. Think of how Rove spun FL 2000 as it being inevitable that Bush would win. He convened the Transition Team and started issuing Chief of Staff orders. That made it seem like Bush had won and Gore was trying to squirrel out a win. (It also didn't help that Gore conceded and then unconceded. The dope.)

[Robskillz]

I think this is an excellent point. Think of how Rove spun FL 2000 as it being inevitable that Bush would win. He convened the Transition Team and started issuing Chief of Staff orders. That made it seem like Bush had won and Gore was trying to squirrel out a win. (It also didn't help that Gore conceded and then unconceded. The dope.)

But that was after the election and very smart. This is pre-election strategy.

[Todd]

I think this is an excellent point. Think of how Rove spun FL 2000 as it being inevitable that Bush would win. He convened the Transition Team and started issuing Chief of Staff orders. That made it seem like Bush had won and Gore was trying to squirrel out a win. (It also didn't help that Gore conceded and then unconceded. The dope.)The reason he conceded was that a "mysterious" entry of -16000 votes for him triggered the "call the state for Candidate X" threshold in Bush's favor. He called Bush, then made his way to make his live concession speech. On the way (IIRC, they were in the car, two blocks away) the -16000 insertion was discovered and he withdrew his concession.

The mysterious "error" was corrected, but the impression had been set that Bush had won and Gore was trying to steal it through the back door, rather than the reality that there was no clear winner and the ballots needed to be more carefully counted.

[XYZ]

FWIW...
From states where early voting takes place, there were exit polls taken of those who have *actually* voted so far:

When IA Gov Tom Vilsack spoke on Friday, he said that with about 400,000 votes cast, Kerry was up about 55,000. With 100,000 more votes cast, Kerry's advantage has grown to over 61,000.


That doesn't sound like an exit poll. You have a link to a story on this one?

[unofan]

Nice spin job.

Bush won the initial count. He won the recount. He won the independant recount by the media group. In the running tally as precincts reported, Gore never held a lead even though all the news stations called Florida for Gore early on (which was improper in an of itself because they called it for him before the panhandle voting was closed).

But don't let facts stand in your way... :rolleyes:

[Todd]

Where did this info come from?Heard it on the radio this morning. Typed in the rough numbers as they ran through them then did the math extension afterwards. I recognized the polling group(s), but didn't think to remember which one(s) as I expected to be able to find the links later. As of this moment, I can't. The Vilsack quote I heard myself - as in he was the one speaking.

In the mean time, here's a scary link (http://www.cybersapian.com/) about electronic voter fraud in TX. Long story short, if you vote straight ticket Dem in Travis County (Austin), you're casting a vote for Bush.

[Craig P.]

Note that Harris County (Houston and suburbs) also uses the E-Slate machine and therefore may be subject to the same exploit.

[Todd]

Nice spin job.

Bush won the initial count. He won the recount. He won the independant recount by the media group. In the running tally as precincts reported, Gore never held a lead even though all the news stations called Florida for Gore early on (which was improper in an of itself because they called it for him before the panhandle voting was closed).

But don't let facts stand in your way... :rolleyes:If you're referring to me, you should at least quote me.

Why is it that some folks assume that people telling them things they hadn't heard are making them up?

As for facts, oh look, I'm not spinning, I'm just paying attention to something other than Fox... here's a random link to the heavily documented -16,000 votes (http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=3337&fcategory_desc=The%20Bush%20Crime%20Family) for Gore.

Here's a fun excerpt:
"DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."
- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

Here's another:
"If you strip away the partisan rancor over the 2000 election, you are left with the undeniable fact that a presidential candidate conceded the election to his opponent based on [results from] a second card that mysteriously appears, subtracts 16,022 votes, then just as mysteriously disappears."
- Bev Harris, Black Box Voting In the 21st Century

And another:
"I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded. Will someone please explain this so that I have the information to give the auditor instead of standing here 'looking dumb'."
Lana Hires – Volusia County Florida - January 17, 2001 8:07 AM

As for the independent media group results (their caps, not mine):
"The consortium of newspapers that paid for a study of all of the uncounted Florida ballots announced in November of 2001 that George Bush would have won the election if only undervotes were counted. Buried way down deep in the articles was the apparently (to them) unimportant fact that if all the overvotes had been counted, AL GORE WON FLORIDA’S ELECTORAL VOTES. The wrong guy was in the White House." (Here's a link (http://www.makethemaccountable.com/caro/Comment_040930_Florida2000.htm), scroll most of the way down.) In other words, if all ballots were counted, as they should have been according to Florida law, Gore would have come out ahead. We all know what happened instead - or at least we should.

However, this thread has gone along pretty well without getting into all of this here. It's four years later, and it's time to focus on the next election not the last one. If you want more info, feel free to watch the documentary Unprecedented (http://www.unprecedented.org/UnprecedentedFirstPage.html).

Just tell me... which one of us is spinning, UNO?

[Todd]

That doesn't sound like an exit poll. You have a link to a story on this one?As I said below, I heard the words come out of Vilsack's mouth during an interview Friday. Somewhat to my surprise, I can't find a link to the interview. (I tried for quite a while.)

[unofan]

Last comment on that one, there is no way to count an "overvote" and any opinion to the contrary is asinine.

If you take the SAT, and fill in both A and B for the same question, you get it wrong. They don't take the time to see if you got every other question correct and then assume you meant to pick A and screwed up by picking both. Or if you partially erased A to pick B and didn't erase it enough. You get it wrong.

The same principle applies in voting. If you vote for two candidates, your vote doesn't count. If a 1st grader can figure that out on the CAT or ITBS tests in school, so can someone 18 years or older. If it happened that Gore voters were more likely to screw up than Bush voters by doing that, then tough cookies.

At the issue at hand, I have to agree with Kepler, Bob and others that I find it very suspicious that anyone would report the numbers of votes already cast. I'm not sure it's illegal, but wouldn't be surprised if it was, since it would sway future voters. Same Reason they don't release running vote tallies during the day on Tuesday.

[Todd]

Last comment on that one, there is no way to count an "overvote" and any opinion to the contrary is asinine.

If you take the SAT, and fill in both A and B for the same question, you get it wrong. They don't take the time to see if you got every other question correct and then assume you meant to pick A and screwed up by picking both. Or if you partially erased A to pick B and didn't erase it enough. You get it wrong.

The same principle applies in voting. If you vote for two candidates, your vote doesn't count. If a 1st grader can figure that out on the CAT or ITBS tests in school, so can someone 18 years or older. If it happened that Gore voters were more likely to screw up than Bush voters by doing that, then tough cookies.

At the issue at hand, I have to agree with Kepler, Bob and others that I find it very suspicious that anyone would report the numbers of votes already cast. I'm not sure it's illegal, but wouldn't be surprised if it was, since it would sway future voters. Same Reason they don't release running vote tallies during the day on Tuesday.How's this Chumly:
What if in your SAT example, you bubbled in A, but at the bottom there was also a line that said "Write In Answer" and you wrote down the letter "A". That's technically an "overvote", but you voted for the same person both times. Based on Florida's determine the intent of the voter regulation when it comes to voting, that should be counted... but it wasn't.

There were a number of people that saw the line "Write In Candidate" and did so (they wrote in the candidate's name) in addition to signifying their candidate in the other appropriate space on the ballot. The fact that it happened on more than a few ballots shows that it's an error in ballot design, not an isolated individual. The point that the line should have said "Write-in Candidate" (note the hyphen and lower case "i") or "Other Candidate" or something more clear shouldn't invalidate the votes of people that thought they were doing what they were told.

One day you'll learn to either be more careful about your declarations or stop using absolutes. It only seems to get you into trouble. It's not a black-and-white world. Of course, you seem to back a candidate that sees the world the same way, so I guess that's a good match. You can both be closed-minded and dogmatic together.

In the mean time, regarding your "asinine" prediction, one clue for you that you were wrong might have been that someone, in fact, found a way to count them. "But don't let facts stand in your way... :rolleyes:"

[alnorman]

How's this Chumly:
What if in your SAT example, you bubbled in A, but at the bottom there was also a line that said "Write In Answer" and you wrote down the letter "A". That's technically an "overvote", but you voted for the same person both times. Based on Florida's determine the intent of the voter regulation when it comes to voting, that should be counted... but it wasn't.



1. Based on common sense, doing that makes you an idiot.
2. As far as the "intent of the voeter" is concerned, seven members of the Supreme Court ruled that "standard" unconstitutional. Of course, don't let that get in the way of your rant.

[unofan]

How's this Chumly:
What if in your SAT example, you bubbled in A, but at the bottom there was also a line that said "Write In Answer" and you wrote down the letter "A". That's technically an "overvote", but you voted for the same person both times. Based on Florida's determine the intent of the voter regulation when it comes to voting, that should be counted... but it wasn't.

There were a number of people that saw the line "Write In Candidate" and did so (they wrote in the candidate's name) in addition to signifying their candidate in the other appropriate space on the ballot.
.......
In the mean time, regarding your "asinine" prediction, one clue for you that you were wrong might have been that someone, in fact, found a way to count them. "But don't let facts stand in your way... :rolleyes:"

An overvote is an invalid vote, it is black and white. It's a pretty basic rule, you may vote for one person and only one person. And if people don't know what the hell a write in candidate is, once again, tough ****.

A certain segment of the population will screw up their ballot no matter how much idiot-proofing is done ahead of time. These are the same people who read the phrase "Press Any Key to Continue" and ask where the "Any" key is. If they invalidate their own votes by overvoting in such a manner, we're probably all better off for it.

And the late national polls have Bush in a slight lead, although less than 50% (most in the 49-47/48-47 area). So basically it's looking like a tossup still.

[French Rage]

I noticed the RCP averages (linked off of Drudge) were both at 1.5% for Bush today, whereas they have been in the upper 2s or lower 3s for most of the past few weeks. Get ready for another month-long election, I'd say.

[Todd]

1. Based on common sense, doing that makes you an idiot."Common sense" is often in the eye of the beholder. If it's what you (the general "you", not you specifically) would have thought of - or you believe - you think of it as "common sense". In the case of SATs, as the example mentioned before, IIRC you are supposed to "bubble-in" your name (or a certain portion of it) and then sign the form. One take on your version of common sense would say that doing so would make you an idiot. If not, then why would bubbling-in (or other wise marking) a candidate, then writing them in as a verification be any less plausible? He11, probably everyone reading this board has had to enter and then re-enter a password in order to confirm a change. IMO, not being able to see any other way of viewing the world besides yours makes you a lot more likely to be an idiot than what your standard suggests.
2. As far as the "intent of the voeter" is concerned, seven members of the Supreme Court ruled that "standard" unconstitutional.What they ruled is that since Florida had different methods of capturing votes, each type could not be equally easily re-counted and that that violated "equal protection". That does not mean that the "intent of the voter" standard is unconstitutional. If the machines had all been the same, that issue wouldn't have held any water.

In fact, what it means, it could be argued, is that the election itself was unconstitutional since non-standardized voting mechanisms fail at different rates, thereby violating "equal protection". If you can throw out the recount because of a lack of a standard, you should be able to throw out the first count for the same reason. Either they're both fair or they both aren't. But, of course, no one is going to throw out the initial election results, because then you'd have to apply that to every other election ever held with multiple voting methods. Do you think it was an accident that they said this whole ruling applied only to this particular case and shouldn't set precedent? It's that shaky.
Of course, don't let that get in the way of your rant.Oh, sorry... logic that you disagree with = rant. I didn't know that was the standard.

[Todd]

An overvote is an invalid vote, it is black and white. It's a pretty basic rule, you may vote for one person and only one person. And if people don't know what the hell a write in candidate is, once again, tough ****.Do you watch a lot of Fox? Because you have the same habit of shifting focus from a losing argument.

First you say that I'm spinning and suggest that I'm making things up. When I cite a handful of statements to back up my point and ask who's spinning, you conveniently avoid acting like an adult and apologizing for basically calling me a liar and shift to...

"[T]here is no way to count an 'overvote' and any opinion to the contrary is asinine." When that's shown to obviously not be true, instead of being an adult and admitting that you're wrong, you switch to...

The technicality of whether an overvote is a vote. Well, you've argued that badly as well. Your argument is that "It's a pretty basic rule, you may vote for one person and only one person".

So, riddle me this Batman, if the "overvote" is the same person in two different formats, how does that constitute an unclear choice? If someone picks candidates A and B, I'm right with you, as I would imagine most people would be. If someone picks A and writes in "A", how is their intent unclear? Actually, one could say that their intent is even more clear than those that only filled in one candidate - as evidenced by the huge groundswell of "Buchanan supporters" in the butterfly ballot areas.

As for whether or not they should be considered (link (http://makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm) to last paragraph of section II, emph mine):
A year after the election, a consortium of newspapers examined the ballots and reported that had the Supreme Court not intervened in the recount, Bush still would have won the election by the slimmest of margins, a headline that gave comfort to Democrats and Republicans alike. There was only one problem. The newspapers had looked at only the undervotes, which the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to be examined for the recount. But there were also more than 113,000 overvotes. Later examination by the same papers of the overvotes—which Judge Lewis says he would have been inclined to consider—determined that Gore would have edged out Bush had they been considered.

To Kepler: sorry. I just stated a widely published fact about the -16000 votes. I did not intend to have this turn partisan - but I also won't let others spew crap uncontested.

[Buff]

Todd, I agree with everything you say, but I'm afraid that a voter who looks at a ballot and punches the hole next to a presidential candidate (say Al Gore) and then looks at the line that says "Write In Candidate" and proceeds to write in "Al Gore" is not going to be helped if the ballot is corrected to say "Write-In Candidate."

[Todd]

Todd, I agree with everything you say, but I'm afraid that a voter who looks at a ballot and punches the hole next to a presidential candidate (say Al Gore) and then looks at the line that says "Write In Candidate" and proceeds to write in "Al Gore" is not going to be helped if the ballot is corrected to say "Write-In Candidate."Probably true for most, but every little bit helps.

So do you consider this the time of year where you get to take advantage of being so far west (so far west that you're almost east) - so you don't have to stay up forever for election returns - instead of being screwed by, say, having to get up at 7:00 on Thankgiving to watch the football games live?

[Buff]

Well, except in the summer when I basically work a minimum of 12 hours a day, seven days a week, I'm a night owl anyway. So I'll probably stay up until at least 4 am watching the news, but I'm betting the presidential race is called before 11 pm my time.

As far as getting up in the morning to watch football, forget it. I've almost completely lost interest in the NFL (for instance) as part of a gradual process over the years I've lived here. Sorry, I just can't get up at 9 am for a football game on a Sunday.

On those odd occasions when UND football is televised (such as a DII championship game), I set three alarm clocks to get up to watch it and then fall promptly back to sleep while watching.


Edit: Crickey. At 2:30 am CNN is showing people voting already over there on that side of the continent.

[Kepler]

The Tripias http://www.tripias.com/state/ default flipped over night to a final of Kerry 287 Bush 251.