Predict the electoral vote of the US Presidential Election

"George W. Bush will be the toast of history."

I wouldn't be so confident in that word choice.

now, if we can bring in all several hundred thousand newly-registered voters, there we go...

I have my doubts because the only other big race this year is our Senate race which Blanche has in the bag. There's a gay marriage proposal on the ballot that will attract Bushies to the polling place like flies to manure.

You never know, though.

Iowa - Missouri
Michigan - Ohio, Wisconsin
Minnesota - Wisconsin, Iowa
Ohio - West Virginia
Nevada - Arizona
New Mexico - Colorado, Arizona
Pennsylvania - Ohio, West Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland

Only because of Nader!

In Kerry's favor, Nader will not be on the ballot and there are at least 20,000 more newly registered Democrats than Republicans. The economy here has been sh*t. Opposition to the Iraq War was more widespread and better organized in Oregon than many other states. This helps to energize Kerry's base far beyond what Gore could achieve.

In Bush's favor, there is a heavily-backed Chistian-right ballot measure to restrict gay marriage that might pump up the RR turnout. Plus, there will be an unknown number of terrorized voters who will feel more comfortable with a Repubi-Daddy to cling to during the middle of a war.

My gut feeling is that Kerry will take Oregon by between 2% and 3%.

this is the thinking here in missouri too. in st. louis we can't keep signs in HQ because demand is so high.

The good news is that this guy doesn't have a shot in hell of winning.

I have to say that I've had this feeling more or less since they found Saddam. I'm not sure how this whole Mary Cheney thing will end up playing out. Something tells me the feigned outrage from the right will end up playing really really badly to the middleroad "undecided," though that "something" could just be my disgust for their disgust. Plus two-and-a-half weeks equals roughly 43,295 more pre-election "events" getting media attention.

I should note that "under-the-radar campaigns" mean different things depending on the party - for Democrats, it's voter registration; for Republicans, it's voter suppression.

The real tossups are OH, FL, WI, IA, PA, NV, NH and NM

The states Bush can get only if he moves the national needle are MN, MI, ME and maybe NJ

The states Kerry can get only if he moves the national needle are CO, WV and AZ

This is basically how I see things, except I think that, in the absence of a national needle move, the last four tossups above are already or will very soon be in the second category, locked down as Bush or Kerry states .

i hope to god the bastard loses.

newsweek has him up 6.

...among likely voters, a result they immediately disavowed, given that it showed Bush leading with women and Kerry leading with men. Bush is up by 1 among registered voters in their poll.

kerry is getting desperate,

;-)

reporters kept asking so they could make television ad

LOL

coors will also win

http://www.inventionfactory.com/history/RHAbridg/bb.jpg

and to think i'd missed keith's giardiasic political analysis. it's been so accurate in the past.

lolz so much rong in this thred.

It's true that almost everyone on the thread predicted a Kerry victory, which we didn't get. Clearly the thread looks full of tragic miscalculation somehow.

But I think it's useful to see how many people - a majority of ilxors here, and they were drawing on many ongoing polls and opinions - thought, right to the end, that Kerry was likely to win. They didn't think his campaign was pathetic, or doomed, or that he was obviously a useless candidate, or that after xyz event he didn't have a chance.

I think it's useful to have that confirmed, because so much BS is retrospectively spun saying those things. 'Kerry's sluggish camp never overcame the swift boat fiasco'; 'as a NE liberal, Kerry never had a chance'; 'Kerry was always clearly a loser'. If any of these things were true, then this thread would not have looked the way it did.

I have read that there may have been very significant electoral fraud, in Ohio? - I think Suzy said so too. I think that, whichever way an election goes, we have to take in the possibility that many votes have not been properly counted, either through incompetence or confusion or corruption. If this is true, then it makes the calibration of opinion, popularity --> votes etc more problematic. This is true of the UK too, where electoral fraud seems a major problem.

Was the 2004 election stolen? by Robert F. Kennedy Jr
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Thank you, Mordy. I read something like this in a bookstore in NYC.

[After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn’t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)]

The question that always arises for me is -- if this is true (certainly some will say it isn't), then doesn't it make a nonsense of the whole previous year + of campaigning, fundraising, arguing, debating etc? Why not just call the 2008 election off now and give it to McCain?

[On the evening of the vote, reporters at each of the major networks were briefed by pollsters at 7:54 p.m. Kerry, they were informed, had an insurmountable lead and would win by a rout: at least 309 electoral votes to Bush's 174, with fifty-five too close to call.(28) In London, Prime Minister Tony Blair went to bed contemplating his relationship with President-elect Kerry.(29)]

Well, in part because you can only pull off this kind of fraud if it's reasonably close. Also, because hope is not entirely snuffed out, yet.

lolz so much rong in this thred.

I, for one, was completely otm.

Those farm signs were killer.