Skip to comments.
Bush Has a Lock On These States (Vanity)
2/10/04
| Patrick1
Posted on 02/10/2004 2:36:53 PM PST by 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?
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: electoralcollege; gwb2004
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-153 next last
To: Chris Talk
Don't forget New Hampshire.
21
posted on
02/10/2004 2:53:03 PM PST
by
TheBigB
(Anna Kournikova......Swimsuit Issue......http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1075182/posts)
To: Patrick1
I largely agree with you. I think election 2002 was a great example... the dems are still scratching their heads over this, let alone 2000. The Electoral College rules. Even though I admit that the the overall popular vote will be rather close as the country is very polarized and getting more so, it will still translate into an electoral landslide. A mandate in the second term, IMHO.
22
posted on
02/10/2004 2:53:25 PM PST
by
quantim
(Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
To: raloxk
"one thing you have to remember is Florida was close due solely to Lieberman"
Not to mention all the corruption and vote tampering.
23
posted on
02/10/2004 2:55:30 PM PST
by
HighWheeler
(Liberalism results from the merging of the gullible to the corrupt.)
To: Patrick1
Edwards, interestingly enough, has a cool
interactive map with the electoral votes pre-calculated. The 2000 vote percentages are
here. Take the states Gore won by more than 5% over Bush: DC, RI, MA, NY, HI, CT, MD, NJ, DE, IL, CA, VT, WA, MI, ME. These are Safe Dem. -- 200 electoral votes.
Take the states Bush won by more than 5% over Gore: WY, UT, ID, AK, NE, ND, MT, SD, OK, TX, KS, MS, SC, IN, KY, AL, NC, GA, CO, VA, LA, WV, AZ, AR. Add TN because that's safe as long as Gore isn't running. That's 211 electoral votes which are Safe Rep.
The rest: PA, MN, OR, IA, WI, NM, FL, NH, MO, NV, OH are tossup.
Now make the threshold 3.25%. That makes 247 EV's for Bush, 223 for Kerry with 59 tossup. The only thing that can change this is if Kerry puts a Safe Bush state person on his ticket. Even so, that makes NC, for example, a tossup.
I should note that Kerry could take Safe Rep seats and Bush could take Safe Dem seats, but if that happens, nearly all of the tossup states will go that way too.
I agree with the poster above (was it you?), Lieberman was a big factor in Florida being so close. The FL 2002 governor's race was a portent of things to come. I'd say FL leans Rep in the same way that TN is now Safe Rep.
Bottom line: the Dems NEED Florida. They can't win without it. Gore also won all of the very very close contests except Florida. OR, IA, WI and NM all went with less than .5% difference for Gore, the next on the list is NH, which went Bush by 1.3%.
Bush has a gigantic structural advantage. Maybe Bob Graham could help with Florida, but he's awfully weird...
24
posted on
02/10/2004 2:55:34 PM PST
by
AmishDude
(I posted this on another thread, BTW, but it got lost in the clutter.)
To: TheBigB
Oh, you are right, I just supposed the original poster had included that in his original 223. One might perhaps also say Maine, which is another 4, plus then the 4 of New Hampshire, as places Kerry has to win...and places which might give Bush some of that last eleven votes he needed.
25
posted on
02/10/2004 2:56:02 PM PST
by
Chris Talk
(What Earth now is, Mars once was. What Mars now is, Earth will become.)
To: Huck
Florida is more conservative now.
In 2002, Terry McAuliffe pledged that Jeb Bush, the president's own brother, would be defeated in his re-election bid. In fact, the DNC made the Florida governor's race their number one priority of the 2002 election cycle. Moreover, only two years removed from the spectacle of 2000, emotions and energy should have been be running extremely high among Democrats. Did we see massive Democratic turnout? Did Terry's threats come true, for once? Nope! What transpired was not a humiliating GOP defeat, but a Bush-brother victory by a count that exceeded Jeb's first election margin. He won by an amazing 13 points! It was a complete and utter repudiation of the revenge factor and clearly showed the strength of the GOP in that state. Without Florida as an obvious pickup target, the Democrats' options to gain ground shrink considerably.
And the DNC is going to have to spend a ton of money just to win California.
26
posted on
02/10/2004 2:56:48 PM PST
by
alisasny
(Thankyou to all who made 12/28 party so wonderful in NYC)
To: TheBigB
I will even give you the popular vote. Bush 53% JFK 45% Dean and the Greens 2%.
But again. Cheer up!
27
posted on
02/10/2004 2:56:55 PM PST
by
Patrick1
To: Huck
Even with Florida taken out, we have a lock of 196 votes. Still not too shabby. There's work to be done for sure, but it's Bush's race to lose. If Bush can carry Florida one more time and get an Ohio or Pennsylvania to fall his way this time, it's going to be very tough for Kerry to win.
28
posted on
02/10/2004 2:59:18 PM PST
by
SamAdams76
(I got my 401(k) statement - Up 28.02% in 2003 - Thanks to tax cuts and the Bush recovery)
To: Patrick1
How many people on this forum bitch and moan about this election but don't get off their butts to do anything?
It was Super Saturday last weekend in Michigan.
First thing in the morning I was at a rally with JC Watts, then I headed off to a phone bank and got people to think about voting for Bush, volunteer and place lawn signs.
I will be busy all year making sure that my president is reelected. I hope that more here will be doing the same.
If you need more information on how to volunteer and help Bush, please feel free to freepmail me and I will assist you in your quest, no matter what state you live in.
You are either with us or against us. Vote for Freedom, Vote for Bush.
29
posted on
02/10/2004 2:59:24 PM PST
by
Hillary's Lovely Legs
(Bush has won two wars, Kerry is French......'nuff said)
To: AmishDude
I like this thread!
30
posted on
02/10/2004 2:59:28 PM PST
by
cmsgop
( IT WAS THE DIAZ BROTHERS !!!!!!!!!!!)
To: Chris Talk
"I think Bush has a good lead in...New Mexico,"
Not so sure about that. With Governor Richardson being a possible JFK running mate (and remember, Richardson's one of Clinton's buddies AND since he's ethnically half Latino, has that vote) New Mexico may have to be written off. It IS a more liberal state than Texas.
31
posted on
02/10/2004 2:59:40 PM PST
by
Maria S
("I will do whatever the Americans want…I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid." Gaddafi, 9/03)
To: quantim
The only item that might pull one of the states out the "lock" column is Jane Fonda Kerry's VP choice which I think is likely John Edwards or Mark Warner. A choice like Bill Richardson might put Arizona in play.
To: AmishDude
Of those, I say W. has >60% chance at FL, NH, MO, NV, and OH. W. won all of those last time, and he will do so again.
33
posted on
02/10/2004 3:03:25 PM PST
by
TheBigB
(Anna Kournikova......Swimsuit Issue......http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1075182/posts)
To: Patrick1
It's dangerous to count your chickens before they hatch. I'm not normally superstitious, but I'm superstitious about that. Moreover, it promotes laziness and complacency.
More importantly, we don't just need to win the presidency. We need to win enough seats in the Senate to break the Democratic refusal to deal reasonably or compromise, especially on judges. Judicial appointments are the number one priority. They are absolutely essential. And Bush can't do it without more votes in the Senate. We need to sweep the country if we want to start shoveling out activist, constitution destroying judges.
34
posted on
02/10/2004 3:03:53 PM PST
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: cmsgop
Somebody on the other thread pointed out the Nader factor to me. I still stand by my Safe/tossup breakdown. Sure, putting all the Nader voters in the Kerry camp makes some states more of a tossup, but I don't think that's fair. I think the fear of Naderites may have increased GOTV efforts for the Dems. Plus, Naderites tend to stay home.
But your mileage may vary.
To: Patrick1
I disagree. Here's my two cents:
Alabama - R
Alaska - R
Arizona - R
Arkansas - R
California - D
Colorado - R
Connecticut - D
Delaware - D
District of Columbia - D
Florida - R
Georgia - R
Hawaii - D
Idaho - R
Illinois - D
Indiana - R
Iowa - D
Kansas - R
Kentucky - R
Louisiana - R
Maine - D
Maryland - D
Massachusetts - D
Michigan - D
Minnesota - D
Mississippi - R
Missouri - D
Montana - R
Nebraska - R
Nevada - R
New Hampshire - R
New Jersey - D
New Mexico - D
New York - D
North Carolina - R
North Dakota - R
Ohio - D
Oklahoma - R
Oregon - D
Pennsylvania - D
Rhode Island - D
South Carolina - R
South Dakota - R
Tennessee - R
Texas - R
Utah - R
Vermont - D
Virginia - R
Washington - D
West Virginia - R
Wisconsin - D
Wyoming - R
Electoral Totals: Rat gets 291, Bush gets 247. If Dubya signs the AWB and Kerry picks Gephardt (who brings in OH and MO) for VP, this result coming to pass becomes quite possible.
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/calculator.html
36
posted on
02/10/2004 3:05:55 PM PST
by
KantianBurke
(Principles, not blind loyalty)
To: unixfox
Texas isn't a lock. We have been importing plenty of ILLEGALS to sway the vote.Total and utter baloney.
37
posted on
02/10/2004 3:06:39 PM PST
by
Diddle E. Squat
(a Bush loss means a Guliani/Powell ticket in 2008)
To: TheExploited
Vice Presidents are non-factors. None of the Bush lock states can be changed, or they wouldn't be "locks".
38
posted on
02/10/2004 3:07:18 PM PST
by
Patrick1
To: Maria S
Well, NM is a tossup and a loss if Richardson is on the ticket. But I don't think he'll resonate elsewhere. He may be officially hispanic, but he won't help much in that department unless he changes his name to Guillamo Hijoderecardo.
To: unixfox
A friend in Texas, who is a lock-step Democrat,former military, supported the war and is now against President Bush on the budget and lack of WMD, says he hears a lot of whining in Texas against our President.
Texas Bush supporters: SPEAK OUT!
And if he is full of it, let me know, please.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-153 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