Bush Has a Lock On These States (Vanity)

2/10/04 | Patrick1

[Patrick1]

Having been at FreeRepublic as a "contributor" instead of a lurker for the last couple of weeks I'm amazed at the pesimistic attitude shown on so many of these threads.

For example, we are worried about what Bill O'Reilly thinks, we are worried about a Gallup weekend poll etc.

But shouldn't we think for a minute? To win the presidency, as Algore can tell you, you must win 270 electoral votes.

Fifty state elections of which a candidate must claim the majority of the vote. So how does George W. Bush stack up against JFK? If the economy collapsed and Saddam escaped from prison and started running Iraq again and all this happened the day before the election the way I see it George W. Bush would still get 223 electoral votes.

The following states are "locks". Alabama-9 Alaska-3 Arkansas-6 Colorado-9 Florida- 27 Georgia-15 Idaho-4 Indiana-11 Kansas-6 Kentucky-8 Louisiana-9 Mississippi-6 Montana-3 Nebraska-5 North Carolina-15 North Dakota-3 Oklahoma-7 South Carolina-8 South Dakota-3 Tennessee-11 Texas-34 Utah-5 Virginia-13 Wyoming-3

This is a worst case scenario, Bush needs 47 more electoral votes to win. Which of course means that JFK must run a nearly perfect campaign. He must win West Virginia,Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, etc.

Basically what I'm saying is quit whining, rejoice the left is going to lose again! Your thoughts?

[donozark]

Please see post 97.

[MEG33]

Now THAT I would not bet on..hoping is all I can do!

[donozark]

RE:Graham-I believe he has health concerns? My understanding was he suffered loss of blood-flow to brain during his heart surgery. Not being cruel or sarcastic, just something I read here. Also, he frankly, just did not look well during his ill-fated Pres. run. But of course Dick Cheney seems quite robust and I have a cousin that was cutting firewood 4 months post-op with a quad-bypass!

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Bush ran a very weak campaign against one of the best politicians of the 20th century. Clinton may have been the number one campaigner of American history, he was simply spellbinding to those who didn't pay much attention to politics.

In 2000, Gore was a stiff and Bush had trouble off script, but it was glaring because we had Reagan and then Clinton for 16 of the last 20 years. Now Bush seems to have much more command of his communication skills, and Clinton has devolved into a punchline. That means that whoever the Democrats throw to the front, he will have to stand up, on his own, against "the cowboy", and America loves their cowboys =)

[sinkspur]

He's full of it.

[sinkspur]

Don't count on Oklahoma. People are steamed about illegals and there is a Dem Gov.

That's nuts. Okies aren't going to vote for a Northeastern liberal.

[donozark]

And the courts just upheld Oklahoma's recently passed Right to Work Law. The most recent RTW state. Urban areas of Tulsa/Ok City will of course go Dem. As will The Nations. However, rest of OK is strong Republican.

[edwin hubble]

Great post ( #24)

Do you know the impact of the shift in electoral votes from the last census? Bush states gained some electoral votes. Gore states lost some.

[donozark]

I do not believe Missouri is a toss up for reasons indicated above...

[Tuxedo]

No way Kerry wins Ohio. The Dem party has no base here at all and is total shambles.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Bush states pick up 7 electoral votes, meaning Gore states lose 7. This is yet another hurdle for the Dems this cycle.

[edwin hubble]

Shift in population - shift toward Republican states:

Reapportionment of congressional districts means every representative gained or lost in each state is also a vote in the Electoral College gained or lost in that state.

Of the states carried by Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election, New York and Pennsylvania will lose two of their Electors; Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin will lose one each. Only California gains an Elector, making a net loss of seven Electors.

But.. Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma among the states carried by George W. Bush lose Electors, Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina gain one each, while Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas gain two Electors apiece, a net gain of seven Electors.

Accordingly, if Bush had won exactly the same states on 2000 census figures, he would have beaten Gore by 278 to 260 votes in the Electoral College, a majority of eighteen votes.
(from THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND AMERICAN POLITICS.(Statistical Data Included)

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2242/1625_278/76737773/p1/article.jhtml

[Vision Thing]

Texas isn't a lock. We have been importing plenty of ILLEGALS to sway the vote.

Wrong.

Texas is a lock. We Texans have been importing plenty of conservatives and Republicans to sway the vote.

Here's a clue, sherlock. If illegals go to the polling place, and if they are fortunate enough to pass muster with the polling authorities, they will not understand how to read the ballot.

[noodler]

Even though the rich liberals have enough $ to escape the the mess they made,they remain in touch.I think by vote they would impart their views over the adopted area.

[ought-six]

"I wouldn't bet on West Virginia, Minnesota or Pennsylvania."

I agree. Those states are very "iffy" for Bush.

[ought-six]

I agree. I think Bush takes Florida in November. He won't take California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, Delaware. Those I know for sure.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

"I wouldn't bet on West Virginia, Minnesota or Pennsylvania."

I'd bet on a Bush win in WV. That state seems to be trending Republican, and W carried it in 2000. MN and PA, are just gravy IMO. Bush can win handily without them. If he carries MN or PA, it'd be a landslide because states like OH and FL would likely already be in the Bush camp.

[GiveEmDubya]

I agree, in that he will not take those states. He will improve his margins I think in just about all of them, if only by a point or two.

As far as California, he probably will not win it, but I think that has potential to be a lot closer than 2000. Gore won there by 12 or so points, when Gray Davis was widely seen as future presidential material and Dianne Feinstein was near the top of the ticket. Now, there's Arnold and Barbara Boxer, who I would have to assume is less popular than Feinstein for her Uber-liberalism. As I said, I don't think he'll win there, but if the GOP gets off their asses and start working hard for Bush, a tightening margin will force Democrats to spend money there. With their situation now, they cannot afford to do that. That is why they are at a disadvantage at present.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"How the hell can you say Florida is a lock?"

Because it's my State, and they can't have it.

Yeah...it's mine.

[ought-six]

"...but if the GOP gets off their asses and start working hard for Bush, a tightening margin will force Democrats to spend money there. With their situation now, they cannot afford to do that. That is why they are at a disadvantage at present."

Yes, that's true.