Quantcast

It's Deja Vou all over again; Kerry Trails Bush in Electoral Votes

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
AP: Kerry Trails Bush in Electoral Votes
Associated Press |Jul 24 | RON FOURNIER

BOSTON (AP) - John Kerry narrowly trails President Bush in the battle for the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, as he makes his case at the Democratic National Convention this week to topple the Republican incumbent. Tall hurdles remain in his path, including Electoral College math that favors Bush.

With three months remaining in a volatile campaign, Kerry has 14 states and the District of Columbia in his column for 193 electoral votes. Bush has 25 states for 217 votes, according to an Associated Press analysis of state polls as well as interviews with strategists across the country.

"It's a tough, tough map. I think it's going to be a close race," said Democratic strategist Tad Devine, who helped plot Al Gore's state-by-state strategy in 2000 and plays the same role for Kerry.

"But looking back four years, we're much stronger now. I think we're going into this convention in great shape," he said.

Both candidates are short of the magic 270 electoral votes. The margin of victory will come from:

_TOSSUPS - Bush and Kerry are running even in 11 states with a combined 128 electoral votes. Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia are the toughest battlegrounds. Two other tossups, Pennsylvania and Oregon, could soon move to Kerry's column.

_LEAN KERRY - Maine, Minnesota and Washington (a combined 25 electoral votes) favor Kerry over Bush by a few percentage points. Gore carried them in 2000.

_LEAN BUSH - North Carolina, Colorado, Louisiana, Arizona, Virginia, Arkansas and Missouri (a combined 73 electoral votes) give Bush modest leads. He won all seven in 2000.

All total, 21 states are in play. Some will bounce between "lean" to "tossup" throughout the campaign.

---_

Four years ago, Bush won 30 states and their 271 electoral votes - one more than needed. Gore, who won the popular vote, claimed 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 267 electoral votes.

Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bush's states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gore's are worth just 260.

Even if Kerry consolidates Gore's states, no easy task, the Democrat must take 10 electoral votes from Bush's column to close the electoral vote gap.

Kerry's best prospects may be in the five tossup states won by Bush in 2000: Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and West Virginia.

Winning either Ohio's 20 electoral votes or Florida's 27 would do the trick.

Bush easily won Ohio in 2000, but its lagging economy puts the state in play. Kerry must still reduce Bush's advantages among conservative, rural voters. Florida should favor Bush a bit more than in 2000, partly because of its relatively strong economy, but the war in Iraq has helped keep the race close.

Nevada and West Virginia have a combined 10 electoral votes, enough to close the gap. New Hampshire, which neighbors Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, has four.

West Virginia voted Democratic for decades until Bush made values an issue in 2000; Kerry is stressing the theme this year. In Nevada, an influx of Hispanics and the administration's push to use Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste site make the state tougher for Bush than in 2000.

Six of the 11 tossup states were won by Gore: Pennsylvania, Oregon, Michigan, Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin. But the margin of victory was just a few thousand votes in Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin - meaning Kerry has his work cut out to keep them.

Of the three, Bush likes his chances best in Wisconsin, where he is targeting rural voters in a bid to widen the electoral gap by 10 votes.

---

Flush with money and leading a united party, Kerry increased his odds by expanding the playing field into a handful of GOP states that Bush easily won in 2000, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, Virginia and Colorado. Results have been mixed.

After testing the waters, Kerry pulled his ads from Arkansas and Louisiana, and downgraded his focus on Virginia and Arizona. Hispanic voters make Colorado a prime target, but Democrats acknowledge it's a tough state to win.

"The race is still fundamentally tied, and the Electoral College map reflects that," said Bush strategist Matthew Dowd. "But there is beginning to be a slight tilt toward us with Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and Arizona no longer being seriously contested."

Kerry added another Republican-leaning state to his target list when he chose Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as his running mate. Aides are divided over whether North Carolina will remain a battleground through November, but its 15 electoral votes are too tempting to ignore.

Missouri, a traditional battleground, recently moved to the Bush-leaning category and is being written off by some Democrats. The Kerry campaign reduced its ad campaign in the state after polls showed him consistently 4 to 6 percentage points behind Bush, with little room for improvement.

Republican advantages in rural Missouri and the fast-growing exurbs make the state tough for Democrats, but Kerry will likely keep it on the table through November in case the political winds shift. Besides, abandoning a traditional battleground would be embarrassing.

The four-term Massachusetts senator has begun to gather strength in traditionally Democratic states such as Maine, Minnesota and Washington. All were tossups in the spring, but now lean toward Kerry. A good convention could push Pennsylvania and Oregon into the lean-Kerry category.

Recent polls give Kerry an edge in both states, but strategists for Kerry and Bush say the races are still tossup.

"There is an angry feeling toward the incumbent because of Iraq," said David Sweet, who managed Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell's 2000 campaign. "I think Kerry will win in the end, but that's partly based on an assumption of things to come. It's close."

Of the states won by Gore, Pennsylvania is by far Bush's top target. The president has spent millions of dollars in the state on commercials and has visited it more than any other contested state - 30 trips since his inauguration.

For Kerry, losing Pennsylvania would create a virtually insurmountable electoral vote gap.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,904
2,867
Pōneke
Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bush's states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gore's are worth just 260
Reapportionment carried out by the republicans in no way reflecting actual percentage population flux. In fact, no one actually knows how many people have moved 2000-2004 because the latest census occured in 2000. Go figure.

Tenchiro: Florida may not be banned but 80,000 of it's black residents are - of whom at least 86% are likely to vote for Kerry (source: Pew Research Center www.people-press.org - more like 90+ according to other sources)

In fact In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- over half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.

Equally disturbing, One in 8 votes cast in Florida in 2000 was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore." Optical reading machines rejected these because "Al" is a "stray mark." Nice.

And there's no end of stuff like this: "DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 2000 - 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

Worse than the obvious lie that was the 2000 election is the Republican-spearheaded emergence of electronic voting machines for this years elections, produced by companies like Diebold, a Republian backing, owned and run corporation. These voting machines 'for the sake of privacy' carry no record of which polsters made which vote - a huge departure from any voting system of the past. These machines are programed using a type of code that is unreadable to anyone other than those who originally programmed it, apparantly to lower the threat of 'hacking' attacks. The code is also apparantly vast compared to the job it needs to do. No testing of these machines has been performed other than by the manufacturers themselves. Make of this what you will.

In 2002, Georgia became the first state to use all-electronic voting. Georgians elected their first Republican governor since the end of the Civil War, although every pre-election poll showed the Democratic candidate leading. In the senatorial race, although polls the day before election day showed the Democratic incumbent, Max Cleland, leading by two to five points, he lost to Republican Saxby Chambliss by seven.

The US voting system is screwed, and even if anyone dares question it, the Republican supreme court will just rule against them. Welcome to the future, George Bush Style.

"This job would be a heck of a lot easier if this were a
dictatorship [pausing].... just so long as I'm the dictator."
-- G.W. Bush

"There ought to be limits to freedom."
-- G.W. Bush

"You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
-- G.W. Bush, Gridiron Club dinner, Wash., D.C. March 2001
 
You know, one thing I enjoy about this country is that we have the freedon to bash anyone we feel like. I enjoy bashing my president and his competetor because NEITHER of them are qualified to run this country. We have the incumbent candidate who smoked weed (atleast he admitted he did) who dodged the draft. And we have the challenger who won the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award this country can bestow, but came back to protest his own brethern in the armed forces, and who hasnt had an original thought since 1971. The incumbent has one of the richest staffs ever made up in this country, and the challenger has one of the most left-winged liberal staffs this country has ever seen. Let's talk about the Vice Presidents and the candidates. Cheney has heart probelms the likes of which shouldnt ever be seen in a vice president, and we have a man who as far as I can tell hasnt even been through puberty yet. The current Vice president is a FAR right conservative who cant seem to find his niche in the Bush administration. The other guy, well, he hasnt even been through puberty yet. But he looks pretty. Maybe that's exactly what the challenger needs is to have a "pretty" vice president. I will ask one thing... Who would you want in the White house? Somone who cant make up his mind about anything, or someone who loves to fight his daddy's wars? But lets look at one more thing to think about. Here we have 2 of the richest men to ever run for president. So why do they need to raise all sorts of cash to pay for thier campagins? The incumbent has a ranch that has over 200 acres on it, and the challenger is married to Theresa Heinz, keeper of the Ketchup, mustard, BBQ sauce fortune. Neither of these men have seen a drop in earnings or profits. So why not fund atleast PART of their campaign with thier vast earnings? I think we as Americans have a real problem when it comes to who we select as president. As far as the voting goes, lets worry about that issue when the time comes. Besides, alot of states have scraped the electronic voting machines. OH, And changleen, about the state of georgia, I would'nt worry about them, they cant get past the civil war and slavery.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,904
2,867
Pōneke
genpowell71 said:
You know, one thing I enjoy about this country is that we have the freedon to bash anyone we feel like.
Unless you vote GW in again, then you'd better watch what you say.
I enjoy bashing my president and his competetor because NEITHER of them are qualified to run this country.
Although one is considerably LESS than the other..
We have the incumbent candidate who smoked weed (atleast he admitted he did) who dodged the draft.
Don't forget 'Made the world more unstable, killed thousands, hijacked environmental policy and created the biggest defict in history..
And we have the challenger who won the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award this country can bestow, but came back to protest his own brethern in the armed forces, and who hasnt had an original thought since 1971.
That may be true, but at least he can THINK..
The incumbent has one of the richest staffs ever made up in this country, and the challenger has one of the most left-winged liberal staffs this country has ever seen.
You need it! And it's not that Liberal!
Let's talk about the Vice Presidents and the candidates. Cheney has heart probelms the likes of which shouldnt ever be seen in a vice president,
and is a corupt, evil, tosser
and we have a man who as far as I can tell hasnt even been through puberty yet.
Try looking a little harder...
The current Vice president is a FAR right conservative who cant seem to find his niche in the Bush administration. The other guy, well, he hasnt even been through puberty yet. But he looks pretty. Maybe that's exactly what the challenger needs is to have a "pretty" vice president.
yessss.... :help:
I will ask one thing... Who would you want in the White house? Somone who cant make up his mind about anything, or someone who loves to fight his daddy's wars?
Kerry.
But lets look at one more thing to think about. Here we have 2 of the richest men to ever run for president. So why do they need to raise all sorts of cash to pay for thier campagins? The incumbent has a ranch that has over 200 acres on it, and the challenger is married to Theresa Heinz, keeper of the Ketchup, mustard, BBQ sauce fortune. Neither of these men have seen a drop in earnings or profits. So why not fund atleast PART of their campaign with thier vast earnings?
They do.
I think we as Americans have a real problem when it comes to who we select as president.
Understatement of the Year award!
As far as the voting goes, lets worry about that issue when the time comes. Besides, alot of states have scraped the electronic voting machines.
31 States plus DC are to use E-voting. That's quite an advantage... It'll be far to late by then, people will hve voted, there will be no record of who voted for what and the republicans will just lie about it and the republican supreme court will give it to Bush. It needs sorting out before it starts.
OH, And changleen, about the state of georgia, I would'nt worry about them, they cant get past the civil war and slavery.
OK....:confused:
 
Well then, allow me to retort:
1. I'm not voting this year because I dont like ANY Of the people running. I didnt vote for Bush in 2000, and I didnt vote for his daddy either.

2. NIETHER are overly qualified to run the country. One's a texas governor who is all about the rich people, and the other cant seem to stay on one side of the proverbial deomcratic fence.

3. Reagan made the largest deficit in history. Remember? He put the soviet union in the crapper by increasing military spending by roughly 150% And I'm not sure if yor talking about Bush's plan to dig in the Alaskan Preserve, but if it'll get us off our dependancy of the middle east for oil, then I'm all for it.

4. Yeah, he can think... I think I'll change my mind and back the 85 million dollar package, but after it's passed, I think I'll change it back and oppose it.

5. I have no idea what a tosser is, but I'm guessing it has a negative connotation to it, and I agree with you 100% on that.

6. Liberals will put this country in a weak position in the world. What we need is bi-partisan politics to ensure we're strong, but at the same time, taking care of ourselves.

7. As far as the voting machines go, you sound like a conspiracy theory person trying to find it where you can. Dont you think the electoral college will ensure fairness in the election? If you look at the staff on the voting committee, it reads like a page from the Clinton book. Liberals liberals liberals. If anything, you should be happy about that.
 

BostonBullit

Monkey
Oct 27, 2001
230
0
Medway, MA
genpowell71 said:
And we have the challenger who won the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest military award this country can bestow, but came back to protest his own brethern in the armed forces, and who hasnt had an original thought since 1971.
wait wait, who won the congressional what? certainly you're not talking about kerry and his bleeding hearts....ahh, purple hearts and bronze star? (or was it a silver star) :help:
 

Toshi

butthole powerwashing evangelist
Oct 23, 2001
40,224
9,113
1) you're doing the system a disservice. if you don't like the two party candidates, vote for someone else. nader, whoever-is-running-for-the-libertarians-this-year, a socialist, whoever floats your boat.

2) true. see point #1.

3) not true. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A59930-2003May30&notFound=true states the following:

The Democrats predict the deficit this year will top out at $416 billion, a figure that would shatter the $290 billion record set in 1992, even after it is adjusted for inflation. The projected deficit next year would reach $489 billion. In February, the White House forecast a $307 billion deficit for next year, even with all of President Bush's policy proposals included.
furthermore, about the oil, here's some reading:

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/100503/opi_williams.shtml : "If ANWR was opened to oil production, it could increase oil through the trans-Alaska pipeline to more than 2 million barrels a day"

compare that hypothetical 2 million to the usa's consumption of 17 million barrels a day (of which roughly 55% is imported) and alaska doesn't look _that_ important, no?

skipping to 6) i agree. but under the bush administration we've seen nothing but the pnac's plan carried out: http://www.pnac.info/

7) e-voting is a scandal, already. http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/ . also see this cnn article http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/05/13/dented.diebold.ap/ with the direct quote (O'Dell is the chairman and CEO of Diebold), "In August, O'Dell said in a fund-raising letter for the Ohio Republican Party that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes" to Bush."

genpowell71 said:
Well then, allow me to retort:
1. I'm not voting this year ...

2. NIETHER are overly qualified to run the country. ...

3. Reagan made the largest deficit in history. ... And I'm not sure if yor talking about Bush's plan to dig in the Alaskan Preserve, but if it'll get us off our dependancy of the middle east for oil, then I'm all for it.

...

6. Liberals will put this country in a weak position in the world. What we need is bi-partisan politics to ensure we're strong, but at the same time, taking care of ourselves.

7. As far as the voting machines go, you sound like a conspiracy theory person trying to find it where you can. Dont you think the electoral college will ensure fairness in the election? If you look at the staff on the voting committee, it reads like a page from the Clinton book. Liberals liberals liberals. If anything, you should be happy about that.
 

bmxr

Monkey
Jan 29, 2004
195
0
Marietta, GA
Changleen said:
"This job would be a heck of a lot easier if this were a
dictatorship [pausing].... just so long as I'm the dictator."
-- G.W. Bush

"There ought to be limits to freedom."
-- G.W. Bush

"You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
-- G.W. Bush, Gridiron Club dinner, Wash., D.C. March 2001
Mike Moore? Is that you?

It's not even October and the conspiracy theorist whining is already starting about the voting. Enjoy the next four years kiddies! :p