Skip to comments.
2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 1/26/2004
TradeSports.com ^
| Monday, January 26, 2003
| Momaw Nadon
Posted on 01/26/2004 8:44:27 AM PST by Momaw Nadon
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
I went to
TradeSports.com which is a futures market in which people bet on the outcomes of various things.
According to the current trading prices of the futures contracts, an estimate can be found of what traders are betting will be the outcome of 2004 Presidential Election.
If the traders are correct, President Bush would receive 355 Electoral Votes and the Democratic candidate would receive 183 Electoral Votes.
Opinions and commentary are welcome.
To: Momaw Nadon
2
posted on
01/26/2004 8:47:14 AM PST
by
Momaw Nadon
(Goals for 2004: Re-elect President Bush, over 60 Republicans in the Senate, and a Republican House.)
To: Momaw Nadon
This is, of course, BEFORE the arrest of Bin Laden and the passing of the bill to make the tax cuts permanent. (heehee)
To: Momaw Nadon
There are indications in the two parties strategies that have been very accurate predictors of election outcomes in the past.
Click Here
To: Momaw Nadon
Delaware 42.5
Maine 46.0
Michigan 56.0
Minnesota 56.0
Oregon 58.0
Washington 48.0
This indicates that only 6 states are really in play...
To: Common Tator
Thank you for the link Common Tator.
That is an interesting read.
6
posted on
01/26/2004 9:01:12 AM PST
by
Momaw Nadon
(Goals for 2004: Re-elect President Bush, over 60 Republicans in the Senate, and a Republican House.)
To: Momaw Nadon
This is weird. I'm looking at it, and it seems overly optimistic, but when I delve further I can't find really any argument with it...at least not enough of one to make a difference in the outcome. Thanks for this.
To: Onelifetogive
Bush has a 70% chance of winning Florida? I wish I could believe that, I really do, but I just don't. I think he will win it, but to say it's 70% likely strikes me as irrational exuberance.
8
posted on
01/26/2004 9:08:53 AM PST
by
jpl
To: Onelifetogive
From what I hear, Ohio is in play, and on here they have it 78% for Bush. I wouldnt read a whole lot into this.
9
posted on
01/26/2004 9:10:38 AM PST
by
Husker24
To: Onelifetogive
This indicates that only 6 states are really in play... Even if President Bush loses in all of these 6 states, he still wins the election with 321 Electoral Votes.
10
posted on
01/26/2004 9:12:59 AM PST
by
Momaw Nadon
(Goals for 2004: Re-elect President Bush, over 60 Republicans in the Senate, and a Republican House.)
To: Momaw Nadon
That's almost exactly how I have calculated it on numerous threads around here---340-350 EVs for Bush.
The only thing that could turn this into a Bush landslide would be one of the really biggies, NY, CA, or IL, going to Bush. That isn't out of the question.
11
posted on
01/26/2004 9:13:55 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
To: Onelifetogive
I think Bush will win Minn. and Or. I think the others are going to be tough.
12
posted on
01/26/2004 9:15:35 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
To: Momaw Nadon
This figures will have to change when we know who is the final candidate for the Democrats. When people will compare George W. Bush with the actual Democrat candidate, they will be able to make their minds more specifically. I believe that many will prefer Bush.
13
posted on
01/26/2004 9:16:17 AM PST
by
BplusK
To: sirshackleton
What you have to do is ask yourself this: "What states that Bush won in 2000 can a Dem win today?"
You won't find many. MAYBE FL with the "right" candidate . . . except any named candidate gets creamed by Bush.
Now, ask "what states that Bush lost in 2000 can he win in 04?" I think you have to say MN, NM, IO, OR, PA, WI, and possibly NJ and MI. Throw in the fact that JUST the states Bush won in 2000 already have an additional 7 electoral votes (meaning he begins with 278 and the Dem has 7 fewer) and you see the magnitude of the Dem challenge.
14
posted on
01/26/2004 9:17:53 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
To: Husker24
I live in OH. It ain't in play, and wasn't all that close in 2000.
15
posted on
01/26/2004 9:18:27 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
To: Momaw Nadon
Iowa and Oregon are a bit too optimistic. Oregon has by-mail voting that spell rat voter fraud opportunity.
16
posted on
01/26/2004 9:19:34 AM PST
by
jmaroneps37
( lurch and teddy perfect together!)
To: jmaroneps37
"Iowa and Oregon are a bit too optimistic. Oregon has by-mail voting that spell rat voter fraud opportunity."
I always thought Iowa was a conservative state because of it being rural, etc. What's the deal there?
17
posted on
01/26/2004 9:22:00 AM PST
by
The South Texan
(The Democrat Party and the leftist (ABCCBSNBCCNN NYLATIMES)media are a criminal enterprise!)
To: Momaw Nadon
Interesting site.
To: Momaw Nadon
According to the new Newsweek poll, Kerry leads Bush. These numbers will start to change.
19
posted on
01/26/2004 9:45:25 AM PST
by
lasereye
To: The South Texan
I always thought Iowa was a conservative state because of it being rural, etc.
Nobody lives on farms anymore in Iowa. Like the old saying goes: "It's easy to make a million dollars farming . . . if you start with two million dollars."
Iowa is retired people (can you say, "Social Security"?) and city people (not big cities, mind you, but not rural).
Obviously, those statements are exaggerated for effect. And in fact, Iowa was close in the last election. But lots and lots of conservatives left years ago - like I did - to go where the jobs are.
20
posted on
01/26/2004 9:46:12 AM PST
by
Gorjus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson