How many electoral votes do you think we'll get?

[UrbScotty]

346 days until the election!

[Mattforclark]

1. The dem will win the popular vote

The electoral college will be a tie,

The house will appoint Bush.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Just cuz repukes have a majority doesn't mean Bush gets appointed...

The system is actually kind of stupid. House votes but it's done by state, each state is worth the same amount. Therefore their gerrymandering of Texas and such would give them no advantage in this scenario.

[wuushew]

27. I disagree if the gerrymandering occurs in a close state

Aside from the incumbent-protection racket, Republicans did a better job of gerrymandering House seats in the relatively small number of states where one party or the other was in charge of redistricting and willing to use its advantage.

The best example was Florida. We know from the 2000 presidential election results that Florida is, in terms of political sentiment, the most evenly divided state in the union; Bush won the state by only 500 votes. So if Florida's congressional seats properly reflected the state's politics, its 25-seat delegation would be divided roughly in half. Instead, it has 18 Republicans and only seven Democrats. That shows the power of redistricting built around the creation of safe seats—and the power of technology that allows very precise map-drawing. It also demonstrates the partisanship that is driving redistricting these days.

http://www.ndol.org/blueprint/2003_number_3/08_gerrymander.html

[HFishbine]

2. 285

We get the Gore states, plus OH and WV.

[terrya]

3. Wiill we lose Florida? Not that we lost it in 2000....

Your analysis sounds just about right.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcuno]

14. Welcome hobbs27. I'm from Florida and the people I know are mad.

These are my relatives and such who live in central Florida. Even my mom, who voted for * says she's not doing it again. Also, I'm hearing that people at MacDill are really ticked off. These are just individual folks so you can't judge the whole state. I think that if just the 70,000 who voted for Nader vote Dem, then for * in Florida, it's all over but for the showers.

[terrya]

15. I'm hoping that African-Americans in Florida will be really mad...

And remember the bullshit...excuse my language...at what happened in in Florida in 2000.

[pruner]

5. the electoral map is different this time around

the Gore states aren't worth as much today as they were back then.

[Zynx]

7. OH and WV plus the Gore states do equal 285.

[HFishbine]

8. You are correct sir

But that was taken into account to get to 285, thanks to John Edwards' nifty interactive map: http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

As for Florida, sure we have a chance, but considering that a majority of votes still failed to put it in the Gore column last time around, I left it for Bush.

[shockingelk]

42. NV is likely not going for Bush

They are pissed because of Yucca Mtn ... that is +5

[Zynx]

4. I say 294-304

Gore states plus WV, OH, NH, NV, and possibly AZ.

[HFishbine]

9. Yep

NH too. I forgot NH. It was one of only two states where Bush's margin of vitory was less than the Nader votes. I don't think that will happen again. 289.

Although, I hope you are right about AZ and NV, that would give us some margin in case we lost PA.

[Zynx]

17. NV we have a real good shot. It is trending Democrat.

AZ is less of a shot, but I think we can do it.

[shockingelk]

43. Are you confident about MI? n/t

?

[UrbScotty]

10. Freepers are in full force tonight

"200 or less" is in the lead.

:wtf:

[HFishbine]

11. Let 'em freep

Notice that nobody is stepping forward to suggest why Bush would win in a landslide. With his approval at 50% and re-elect at 38%, it's an indefensible notion.

[Eric J in MN]

16. I'm one of the pessimists

Incumbents usually win.

Ronald Reagan in 1984 won in an electoral landslide.

From a liberal perspective, Reagan's first term was a giveaway to rich individuals and corporations.

People voted for Reagan anyway because they wanted to vote for the President and they liked his personality. Most Americans like George W.'s personality.

[jsw_81]

18. Well...

Incumbent presidents who lost the popular vote have always gone down to defeat in the next election.

[MoonRiver]

46. Poppy Bush lost, when he, also, ran against a Rhodes Scholar from AK

:D

[Frodo]

20. I'll "step forward"

If you'll allow facts without calling me names :-)

The reason I'm still worried is that his numbers are still better than Clinton's and Bill won in a walk. Of course it will depend on who we pick to run, but Clinton AND Reagan were both well behind in the polls at this point and we don't have a single candidate polling ahead of shrub.

In November 1995, Clinton's "re-elect" numbers were 36/51. I don't think his "approvel" numbers got steadily over 50% until the end of the first quarter 1996 (I could be off by a month or two either way).

No, nothing in his numbers shows him tremendously vulnerable. Just beatable... if we pick the right horse.

[HFishbine]

22. Buck Up Frodo

Take a look at this. What do you see? There's the raw data at this point in presidency, where Bush is actually a couple of points lower than Regan and Clinton were. But more importantly, look at the trends. Clinton and Regan were trending up at this point. Junior is more closely tracking his daddy, on a downward trend.

[tritsofme]

33. But also right now,

Both Mondale and Glenn were beating Reagan by about 50-42.

[elperromagico]

36. And Bush 41 was beating Clinton in late '91, wasn't he?

n/t

[tritsofme]

38. I dont think Clinton was showing up in national polls yet.

All the data I have found is face to face with Cuomo.

[elperromagico]

37. Note that Reagan and Clinton's ratings move on a curve

There aren't really any big, sudden leaps of the kind we see with Bush 41 and Bush 43. Their ratings leap around; there's no consistency to them.

Everybody talks about how bad Clinton and Reagan's approval ratings were at this point in their administrations. But, as this chart shows, Clinton and Reagan's ratings were on the rise at this point. Bush 41's ratings were on the decline at this point, and Bush 43 seems to be following that pattern more than he is following Reagan or Clinton's patterns.

[jsw_81]

13. Around 280-290

It will be extremely close.

[Kosmos Mariner]

19. 316 - 222, IF we nominate Wes Clark!

Here is my prediction:

http://home.tampabay.rr.com/highheat/images/electoral_guess.bmp

:dem:

[HFishbine]

23. Just curious

I looked at your map. Are you not one of the Clarkies who thinks Clark would pick up some southern states? (Other than AR?)

[Kosmos Mariner]

26. Florida will be close.....

...but I think my state will go to W. The deck is stacked against Dems in this state. There are more registered Dems, but the Repugs control alomost everything, except for part of South Florida, and the cities. Microcosom of the nation in that regard. Except for the St. Petersburg Times, all of the media is part of the GOP echo chamber. People are individually annoyed at W, but it doesn't FEEL like others are annoyed too. No momentum, no organization, apathy reigns. Just another deadly attribute of suburban sprawl, IMHO.

As to the heart of your question, no, I do not think Clark will win many Southern states, at least not in his first election. :-) Even though most of us picture rabid, bible thumping fundies as the majority, I think that most Southerners lean towards the middle. Democrats represent THEIR interests, but they need to be convinced that it is OK to vote D. We are the better party, better message, more inclusive, but they are in the CHAMBER. A story has been successfully told about the Dems being, snotty, uncaring Northerners, unpatriotic, unprincipled, deviant and hell bent on promoting evil groups like NAMBLA. I really think it is the spatial isolation. If you look at poll data about beliefs and opinions, places with lower population densities, or large distances between towns, almost always have conservative views. You learn to rely on yourself, or your few family members and neighbors. The free flow of new ideas is pretty limited, and people get cozy with "traditions". That is why Florida is such a shame. A very populous place that solidly supports progressive positions (except death penalty) yet is run by right wing wackos. A very strange place. Bottom line, Clark will convince Southerners that Dems are strong not weak, and we fight for everyone, fight for civil liberties, handle the economy better, and can restore the damaged friendships with the rest of the world.

:dem:

[HFishbine]

28. Thanks

for the reply.

[Bombtrack]

21. It depends on the nominee, only Edwards, Clark, or Kerry could win

in all probablity.

Gephardt would probably get like a hundred or so, Dean would probably get 50 - 75

we need 270

[Zynx]

24. In the northeast alone Dean gets more than 75.

At the very lowest he carries NY, VT, MA, CT, RI, NJ, IL, DE, MD, HI, and DC worth 113. That's if Bush wins the country by ten points which he won't.

[Bombtrack]

30. not even half of those would be a lock for him

I truely believe the only sure bets for Dean would be Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii and DC.

You're off your rocker if you think that he is a sure bet in Illinois.

[elperromagico]

31. Why wouldn't he be a sure bet in Illinois?

Just asking out of mere curiosity.

[Bombtrack]

34. Mainly because the middle class doesn't want it's taxes raised

plus they will chose optimism over pessimism, plus he'd probably lose more votes those who vote democratic in large part to wanting stricter gun laws, than he'd gain from those who vote republican because they want less strict gun laws

[elperromagico]

35. You could be right

It seems to me that, at least right now, Republicans are pretty solid behind Bush. I can't see us claiming many votes from them. So this thing has to be won with independent voters.

The Bush tax cuts, despite all the damage they've done, are beneficial to Bush in 2004 for a few major reasons, one of which is: Any Dem candidate who wants to campaign against the Bush tax cuts is obliged by default to campaign in favor of raising taxes.

One wonders if Bush and Co. didn't realize that all along.

[HFishbine]

25. Laughable

I guess that means, in your book, Dean loses New York, California, Michigan.. oh, nevermind. I'm sure you're right.

[Bombtrack]

32. Absolutely

Definetly Michigan. And NY or California could certainly go to Bush if he is the nominee.

[fujiyama]

39. I really doubt that

Dean would do as badly as you suggest, though I agree that of all the candidates Dean has the most difficult chance and most obstacles to overcome.

I believe that Dean would almost definetely get the following: NY, NJ, RI, VT, CT, MA, DE, MD, ME, CA, DC, and even MI and WA. This count puts Dean at 200, still making a solid GOP victory.

But, everywhere else, he probably has the toughest chance. I still think he has a lot of time to moderate his image though I would definetely say he is the "riskiest" candidatate to put up.

[adadem]

40. Dems carry Michigan

Dems have carried Michigan for the past 16 years. Kerry is going strong here...West Michigan is very conservative and those pugs fed up with shrub are looking at Kerry or Clark as an alternative. I'm a precinct delegate and I talk with lots of local folks. That's not the case if Dean gets the nod. Dean is not attracting swing voters or pugs wanting to oust bush in Michigan. So, if Dean gets the nod it's very possible that shrub would carry the state to the pug party for the first time in 16 years. (Gerald Ford is a hometown (Grand Rapids) boy and even Dems swung his way here.)

[elperromagico]

29. Kick

:kick:

Come on, "200 or less" is winning. Either there are a lot of Freepers, or there are a lot of pessimists out there.

[Snellius]

41. If we win I think it will be the opposite of the 2000 coup

Bush could very likely get the popular vote but lose the electoral college. All these polls seem to be skewed by overwhelming regional popularity but elsewhere a brewing civil war.

[wuushew]

45. Please explain how that would happen?

Big states with the exception of Texas invariably give both their popular and electoral votes to the Dems.

I will find the article but I believe that states with more than 10-11 votes get screwed and the remaining small states spread mostly in the plains, mountain west and the south tend to go red.

[Padraig18]

44. 290-300.

It'll be close, but we'll win. :thumbsup: