Kerry/Edwards poised to get 384 electoral votes in a landslide

[TruthIsAll]

I used this site for current polling numbers:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

I downloaded them into Excel, where I have the latest 3 years
DEm/Rep totals state by state. I adjusted the Kerry numbers by
adding 70% of the undecided, defined as the difference
(100%-Kerry-Bush) in each state.

Kerry is poised to get 384 Electoral votes in a landslide. The
key states to watch: AZ, WV, LA, VA, NC. If Kerry pulls ahead
in two of these states, Bush is TOAST. 
 
AdjK% = Current Kerry poll adjusted for 70% of undecideds
(which have gone 60-80% historically for the challenger)

CCG= Dem % of Total votes in last 3 elections (Clinton,
Clinton, Gore) vs. Repub (3rd parties excluded). 

The Dems got 52.6% vs. the Repukes 47.4% over the last 3
elections. 

The Kerry numbers are conservative (expect them to increase
by 2%), as they do not reflect:
1-Edwards
2-Plame indictments
3-Dem convention
4-Fahrenheit 9/11

* refers to Battleground state

	AdjK%	CCG	EV
AL	42.7	44.8%	
AK	37.1	37.6%	
AZ*	47.6	48.8%	< Kerry could win it (not incl in EV)
AR*	52.6	55.2%	6
CA	58.0	57.4%	55
CO	49.3	48.8%	9 < Kerry could win it
CT	62.6	57.7%	7
DE	57.1	56.8%	3
DC	90.4	90.3%	3
FL*	56.4	50.7%	27
GA	45.3	47.6%	
HI	60.9	59.0%	4
ID	39.0	35.7%	
IL	58.3	57.9%	21
IN	44.4	44.8%	
IA*	51.8	51.8%	7
KS	41.6	42.4%	
KY	45.3	46.7%	
LA	49.0	49.2%	9 < Kerry could win it
ME	54.5	57.1%	4
MD	59.0	57.8%	10
MA	65.2	65.3%	12
MI*	54.0	54.7%	17
MN*	53.5	55.7%	10
MS	36.3	44.3%	
MO*	50.1	52.5%	11
MT	42.8	44.9%	
NE	36.5	37.5%	
NV*	53.3	49.9%	5 
NH*	53.7	51.7%	4
NJ	55.8	56.5%	15
NM*	54.9	53.0%	5
NY	61.3	62.6%	31
NC	49.8	46.6%	15 < Kerry could win it with Edwards
ND	37.2	40.8%	
OH*	52.7	50.8%	20
OK	43.1	42.8%	
OR*	54.5	53.6%	7
PA*	51.4	54.2%	21
RI	64.2	65.6%	4
SC	43.5	44.4%	
SD	44.8	44.5%	
TN*	41.8	50.5%	
TX	40.8	44.3%	
UT	29.7	33.6%	
VT	60.1	59.4%	3
VA	50.6	47.3%	13 <Kerry could win it
WA*	52.8	55.9%	11
WV*	48.6	54.0%	5 < Kerry could win it
WI*	50.4	52.7%	10
WY	30.8	38.3%	
	 ?	52.6	384

 
 

[22181]

1. Sounds great, link to the source?

[LittleApple81]

2. TruthIsAll has a special system to get through the RW gloop. Thanks

Truth is All.

[TruthIsAll]

30. Link to article on undecided voters

http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/archives/000770.html

Dubya In Trouble
BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a stalemate. Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days, President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen. John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent. John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement either way. This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.

One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is
that the undecided vote almost always goes against the
incumbent. Consider the past seven presidential
elections in which an incumbent ran (1964, '72, '76,
'80, '84, '92, and '96) - that is, look at the final
vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls. My
analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater,
McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and
Dole) got 85 percent of the undecided vote. Even
incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who
reported that they were undecided in the final polls.

So . . . when Bush and Kerry are tied, the challenger
really has the upper hand.

More bad news for Bush: Democrats usually grow 2-3
points right before Election Day as downscale voters
who have not paid much attention to the election,
suddenly tune in and "come home" to their traditional
Democratic Party moorings. Remember, virtually every
poll (except Zogby) showed Bush slightly ahead of Al
Gore as the 2000 election approached - yet Gore
outpolled Bush by 500,000 votes.

[TruthIsAll]

39. Add to the list #5: The Ken Lay indictment

That just about wraps it up.

[D-Notice]

3. Please

Will someone tell me how this electoral college thing works?

[salinen]

6. I'll make an attempt

Basically, all States are divided into congressional districts based on population and other mysteries. Let's say State "A" has 20 congressional districts. If more of the popular vote, per this State goes to candidate "B", candidate "B" wins all 20 electoral votes in State "A".

I'm sure other du'ers will have a better explanation.

[D-Notice]

So

it's a case of if you win the state, you get all the votes?

So it's all or nothing, not that you get a proportion of the electoral votes?

[theboss]

8. Very simple

Citizens don't actually vote for president; they vote for a sheet of electors.

You take the number of representatives each state has in the House (based on population) and add the number of Senators (2) and you get the number of electors.

When you win a state, you get that state's electors.

Then you add up the number of electoral votes and you get a president.

[BillZBubb]

10. Electoral college quick summary

Each state and the District of Columbia (Washington, DC) have a certain number of electors based on population. In total, there are 538 electors. These electors vote on and determine the president.

Populous states, naturally, have the most electoral votes available. California has 55 electoral votes, NY 31 whereas Wyoming and Vermont have 3.

When people in a state vote for a presidential candidate, they are really voting for that candidate's slate of electors in the state. Almost every state has an all or nothing rule--win the most votes in the state and you get ALL it's electoral votes. Your whole state votes for you, other candidates get nothing. Maine is one exception that I know of, but it's usually not significant.

Because of the all or nothing nature or electoral voting, the popular vote isn't really what matters. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the election based on electoral votes.

That's why we pay a lot of attention to the state by state polling numbers rather than the overall national polls.

[D-Notice]

14. It's different!

So you can end up (like last time) with the winner having less of the popular vote?

Seems strange - as far as I know, every other country's Presidential election goes on the popular vote

Do the electors HAVE to vote for the person their state chooses?

Guess it's a similar system over here - we vote for our individual MP & the party with the most MPs wins & whoever gets the most votes in each area gets to be that area's MP - it's all or nothing

[BillZBubb]

18. Yep, it is different.

Yes, you can lose while winning the popular vote. It has actually happened several times in U.S. history.

We can also have other problems like an electoral vote tie. In that case the House of Representatives selects the president. That has happened before too.

Each candidate chooses a slate of electors that are loyal to him. When he wins the state, those electors are the ones who vote for the state--not the electors of someone else. But, each elector can vote however they want. So, candidates make darn sure they get rabid loyalists. There have been a few times in U.S. history where an elector defected and voted someone else, but never has it made a difference in the eventual winner.

[Ithuilwen]

19. As I understand it

Electors do NOT have to vote with their state's decision. Somebody else check me on this one, though.

Also, there are some states that try to make the electoral process a bit "fairer" in terms of the electoral votes reflecting the popular vote. For example, here in Maine, we have four electoral votes. We have two congressional districts, and each of these is "represented" by an electoral vote -- the candidate with the most popular votes in a district will earn that district's vote, so to speak. Then the statewide count is taken, and whichever candidate has the most popular votes earns the remaining two electoral votes. So, in theory, a candidate can win the state of Maine, but only get three electoral votes due to the OTHER candidate winning the popular vote in one of the congressional districts.

Didja follow that? :)

[theboss]

25. Most states now have laws that you have to vote for the winner

I don't know if all 50 do.

[Malva Zebrina]

27. It is Maine and Nebraska that have a different system

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/me_ne.htm

[ronnykmarshall]

26. I'll explain it

It's an out dated pile of crap.

[olddem43]

36. Check this site out - it explains everything.

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

[D-Notice]

45. To the last few posters

Thanks a lot! Now I know how it works!

[tom_paine]

4. You have Kerry winning FLORIDA?

Now, I am not for abandoning the Sunshine State (in case, for a change, the cynical view is incorrect) for campaigning, but the grim reality is that Gore couldn;t win it even when FGlorida had a Voting System of the Old Republic.

Now they have these Paperless Stalin Machines.

Game over, I think.

Not even gonna be close when you can so easily flip every tenth Democratic Vote tpo Bushevik without a trace.

Floridians! Keep working hard and trying! I might be wrong!

[TruthIsAll]

5. Of course, the Dems have won FL the last 3 elections.

And they did it without the black vote. Hehehe.

Kerry won't let them get away with Diebold/Jebbie BBV. Bank on it.

[tom_paine]

15. Let us pray you are right.

I'd like to bank on it, but my experience observing the DLC, DNC, Democratic Leadership, as well as others who throughoput history have faced similar Tyranny all the way up and including Comrade Putin, who is using the Bushevik Playbook verbatim, to re-subjugate the Russian People so soon after their "liberation".

Putin, like Bush, is bringing "managed Democracy" a fancy new name for Totalitarianism, to his nation.

What I have seen both here in Amerika and throughout history deosn't bode well.

Sorry, that's how I see it.

Am I going to stop working for Kerry/Edwards? NO WAY? Stop donating? NEVER! Because I migth be wrong and how much of a foold would I be to sit on the sideloines knowing my efforts could help and yet doing nothing?

But I must call it like I see it.

Must.

[cthrumatrix]

7. two words - computer voting

a crook when cornered is most dangerous

[theboss]

9. By the way . . . .

You are high if you think this is going to be the result.

[BillZBubb]

12. Please explain?

What do you think (hope?) the result will be?

[theboss]

22. It depends on three states

Whoever wins two of threeseome of OH, MO, and FL wins the election. It is going to be painfully close, I think.

[jmparks02]

11. I hope that is true, but I'm not sure...

I can't see some of those states voting Democrat, regardless of how terrible things are. I think that Bush probably wins North Carolina and Virginia still.

I have heard though that because of the population booms in Northern Virginia, that state should probably go Democrat in the 2008 elections, while the population boom in the Research Triangle of North Carolina likely will push the Tarheel state Democrat by the year 2012.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi jmparks02!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lex]

13. Bank on Kerry/Edwards pulling ahead in North Carolina.

I kid you not.

Feel free to point and laugh at me later if this isn't true.

[yellowcanine]

16. I won't bank on it but I will allow myself to feel warm and fuzzy about it

for today and see how the polls look there in a month or so. Best I can do now.

[Lex]

29. Okay, I'll take that.

But get ready to bank it in a month! :)

Keep in mind the following 2 pieces of info were BEFORE F 911 was selling out all over the state, including Fayetteville (home of Fort Bragg) and

BEFORE Edwards was selected as Vice-Presidential running mate:


June 23rd's Raleigh News & Observer:

"Now, North Carolinians' support for the war has dipped.

Fewer than half of voters surveyed say the threat posed by Iraq warranted going to war, according to a statewide poll conducted this month for a partnership of The News & Observer, WRAL-TV and WUNC radio.

That wasn't the case in N&O polls before the war and again in November and January. In November, 57 percent supported the invasion, and in January 58 percent did."

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1353169p-7476410c.html


And then this:

Winston Salem Journal, May 21st:

Erskine Bowles Takes Double Digit Lead in NC

From the Winston Salem-Journal, "Erskine Bowles holds a 10 percentage-point lead over Republican Richard Burr in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race, according to a statewide poll":

The statewide poll of 625 likely voters found that 45 percent currently support Bowles, 35 percent support Burr and 20 percent are undecided. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. found that 86 percent of voters said they recognize Bowles - a residual effect from his unsuccessful U.S. Senate race against Elizabeth Dole in 2002 -- while just 55 percent recognize Burr, who has represented the 5thDistrict in Congress since 1995.

. . .

Though North Carolina hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since Jimmy Carter, some Republicans were alarmed that the same Mason-Dixon poll showed Bush with just 48 percent of the vote in North Carolina to Democrat John Kerry's 41 percent.


http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031775578456

[Kolesar]

17. What do you get if 60% of the "undecideds" go for the challenger?

Since you cited that 60% to 80% of the undecideds go to the challenger, what is the worst case?

[TruthIsAll]

21. All things being equal, 370 EV.

I am assuming that Kerry has a shot in any state where his Current Adjusted Poll nunbers are at least 48%.

Remember, Kerry/Edwards will only move up over the next 4 months as the chickens come home to roost on BushCo.

[Kolesar]

23. Only a 14 EV difference!

Isn't it amazing that all these Bush problems did not get notice until the last few months?

[theboss]

24. You realize that goes against about 60 years of polling

The challenger nearly always races ahead in the summer and then the incumbent slowly comes back on him. This idea that Kerry's lead is going to grow and grow is the worst kind of wishful thinking.

[TruthIsAll]

28. Sorry, the challenger gets at least 60% of the undecided vote

in the few months prior to the election.

Thats a fact.

[Redbear]

20. Great Work Truth is All

I hope the Plame indictments make more than a 2% difference.

[Senior citizen]

31. So if Kerry/Edwards get that landslide

Bush will sue, claiming that changing Presidents in the middle of a war on terror is a danger to national security, and SCOTUS will agree and reinstall him. Then what do we do?

We'd probably have to get tanks and march on SCOTUS screaming, "Burn, motherfucka, burn!"

[DieboldMustDie]

37. Holy crap! You're even more paranoid than I am.

I don't think SCOTUS would do anything that crazy, though Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas might go for it. :tinfoilhat:

[Senior citizen]

38. I may be crazy, but I'm not paranoid.

Back when the Navy was trying to fire me from a civilian civil service job, they sent me to a shrink. I was fed up with the whole thing by then, so I walked into his office and announced, "I think the government is trying to kill me."

I was just as sure as the Navy was that he would diagnose me as paranoid.

Instead, his report said, "Patient is not paranoid, but has real fears based on actual life experiences."

So I've got that in writing. :silly:

[djg21]

33. Overly Optimistic?

I seem to recall a number of similar discussions taking place on DU just before the midterm elections -- you all recall, the ones in which the Dems got clobbered, the Pukes took the Senate and seats in the House, and Jeb won re-election despite his earlier shananigans in Miami-Dade in 2000!

While I'll be the first to agree that there has been a sea-change in opinion over the past two years, I hardly think this election will be a landslide, and it is far from a sure bet at this point. The reality is that this election very well may be decided in the last six weeks. That's when the majority of sheeple START paying attention to politics. Until then, it is all wishful thinking.

We shouldn't get too complacent! The only poll that matters is the one that will be taken on November 2, 2004.

[TruthIsAll]

34. We have just one worry: Diebold.

"I seem to recall a number of similar discussions taking place on DU just before the midterm elections -- you all recall, the ones in which the Dems got clobbered, the Pukes took the Senate and seats in the House, and Jeb won re-election despite his earlier shananigans in Miami-Dade in 2000!"

ME:The Repubs stole the Senate. Diebolded in at least 3 states.

While I'll be the first to agree that there has been a sea-change in opinion over the past two years, I hardly think this election will be a landslide, and it is far from a sure bet at this point. The reality is that this election very well may be decided in the last six weeks. That's when the majority of sheeple START paying attention to politics. Until then, it is all wishful thinking.

ME: Its all over. Only Diebold can save Bush. And he'll be so far behind they probably won't even try.

We shouldn't get too complacent! The only poll that matters is the one that will be taken on November 2, 2004.

ME: Seems Iv'e heard that cliche before.

[AndyTiedye]

43. And Murdered in One!

> The Repubs stole the Senate. Diebolded in at least 3 states.

and murdered in one (after being similarly murdered in another 2 years ago!).

Does anybody think Wellstone would not have been re-elected? :grr:
Does anybody think Mel Carnahan would not have been re-elected if he were alive?

The Republican margin for control of the Senate is Diebold plus TWO AIRPLANE CRASHES!
:grr::grr::grr:

[MattNC]

35. totally agree

While we can easily win this election, we can easily lose it as well. It's not going to be a runaway for either side. I don't expect a repeat of 2000's shananigans, but it won't surprise me if going into election day to see the race even tighter than last year.

[AndyTiedye]

44. Expect Worse. MUCH Worse

>I don't expect a repeat of 2000's shananigans

[Ugnmoose]

40. With Edwards in TN is going to be in play

Being a border state to NC, Edwards plays very well here. He will defintely lift the Kerry campaign to within the MOE.

[wyethwire]

41. I checked the website

Over at http://www.electoral-vote.com, they have the EV total as Kerry 280, Bush 247

[wyethwire]

42. and that has Wisconsin and Penn in the Bush Column n/t