Electoral College Breakdown, Installment Nine

Various

[Chris Talk]

Chaney as sitting VP would break the tie in favor of Bush.

[Cacique]

L8R

[FRgal4u]

An even more gutsy call is a Kerry/McCain ticket - never say never! If the Bush people are smart, they better make sure no media darling Rs will go to the dems. I know the conservatives will go crazy if Bush dump Cheney, let alone picking a "RINO" like McCain. But from the general election stand point, Cheney will bring little (but the ugly taint - like Haliburton, WMD blah blah) this time around. A shocking pick like McCain, Rudy, Powell will have the media buzzing for weeks. Even a safer pick like Rice, Ridge will have the media going as well. Just hope Bush won't go for Frist (I thought he is a winner till he wrote about his family tree on how "white" his ancestors were.)

Kerry/Gephardt, Kerry/Graham, Kerry/Edwards are all non exciting picks

Kerry/Bayh is a better ticket than Kerry/Edwards

Kerry/Breaux will be shocking

then of course there are a few picks from the Dim governors -

then a Kerry/Richardson is the most likely follow by the Kerry/IA gov. pick.

jmho.

[Kuksool]

Russ "Mr. Clean Elections" Feingold could be a plausible VP for Kerry. The liberal media will brag about how a Kerry/Feingold ticket will stop the special interests running D.C.

[GiveEmDubya]

NH, my future home state, should go for Bush if all goes well. Shaheen was the Democrats best shot in that state, and she topped out at 47% in the Senate race the pundits said she was going to win.

They also said that after the close shave in NH-01 in 2000, Clark was supposed to take the district...that is, until reality hit. Jeb Bradley won the seat in a walk for the GOP.

We have the Governorship (won by HUGE margin by Craig Benson), a veto-proof legislature in Concord, and all seats in the Congressional delegation. If anyone has to work for the state, it's Kerry.

I don't know if Bayh will be the VP nominee. In fact, I have no idea who it will be. It may be Bill Richardson, who knows. I'll say right now it's either Wesley Clark, John Edwards, or Dick Gephardt (but I'm putting about a 25% confidence on that).

WV should be winnable. I don't know how SSM or Kerry's anti-defense voting record could possibly help the Democrats here.

I don't know why, I just cannot see Kerry winning Ohio. He strikes me as too liberal to win a center-right state like this.

I think we'd win Minnesota and Wisconsin before we won Iowa. We had a tough 2002 there and it would complicate things to have a Dem governor in charge during the campaign. Wisconsin, though it has a Dem governor, has what I have heard is an UNPOPULAR Dem governor. That makes the difference. As far as Minnesota, I think they just need to follow the Pawlenty/Coleman battle plan and Bush wins the state. Having both of those men campaigning hard for Bush puts the state very much in play.

I have always said I think we have at least a 50-50 shot at winning ME-02. Besides, I have also said that if the Naderites/Greenies put their resources into a state, it's gonna be Maine. They won 9% in the governor's race in 2002 and picked up a State House seat. Not even Vermont can claim that. Regardless of the rest of the nation, Nader and/or the Green party will be a factor there.

Overall, the electoral picture is probably a lot better for us than CNN/Gallup/USAToday would like you to think it is.

[Chu Gary]

"What if there's a tie in the Electoral College? Because if Bush keeps all of his states from 2000 except for West Virginia and New Hampshire, that's what is going to happen."

I guess when you went to High School, they no longer taught Civics as a mandatory class. In the event of a tie, it goes to the House and the House votes, majority wins. Advantage GWB.

[jack gillis]

Two points:

The 17th Amendment specifies a "majority of the whole number of Senators" and the Veep isn't a Senator despite being President of the Senate.

Also, the caucusing in the House would continue until the Presidential (and Vice-Presidential) term ended, THEN the Senate would vote. No Veep to break the tie anyway.

[Dales]

If the polls supported moving LA closer to the Democrats, I would. So far, they do not. Thanks

[Dales]

Saying it was Dukakis' strongest southern state is not saying much. He lost the state by a margin of 10% points and did not get 45%, but 44%. It was Clinton's best southern state outside of Arkansas, but that is not all that surprising since it does neighbor Arkansas. As for Gore making a respectable showing, it depends on your definition of respectable. He did do one point better than Dukakis did.

[Rummyfan]

Sure looks like Illinois to me!

[Rummyfan]

In the event of an elctoral college 'tie', the election is decided in the House of Representatives.

[Teacher317]

237-228-12 splitting up the center... still a close one!

[Dales]

There is a reason that I do not count the 'slight advantage' states in either camp's columns. You can add them if you like, but that is not what I am claiming or predicting or anything of the sort. Those slight Bush and slight Democrat columns are too close to call either way. At this point.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"MN is winnable for Bush, if he could encourage the growing suburbs (the Ventura Belt) to turnout for him in big numbers. Huge turnout from the Ventura Belt enabled Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman to win in 2002."

---

I agree, the Ventura Belt (technically not suburbs, but exurbs) will be the key to a Bush victory in MN. But Bush will need to do better than Coleman did in North Minnesota, since he won't do as well as the former St. Paul mayor in the Twin Cities core. Minnesota is a very pro-life state, and I think Bush will win it if he hits Kerry over the head on his votes against the partial-birth-abortion ban.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Because of split delegations, even in our two-party system, no candidate may get 26 votes. In that case, the Veep-elect becomes acting Prez until the Prez is decided. And Veep-elected is chosen by straight vote of the Senate except you need 51 Senators because the Veep can't break this tie."

---

Excellent answer, Jack. The 12th Amendment provides that when the Senate votes for the VP in case no VP candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, "a quorum shall consist of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice." That means 51 Senators, even if only, say, 98 show up to vote. And, as you stated, the VP can't break the tie.

But it is unlikely that we wouldn't get 26 House delegations to support Bush. Even when the RATs controlled the TX House delegation, enough RAT congressmen would have voted for Bush to give him the delegation (and with the new redistricting the TX delegation will certainly have a GOP majority), and Congressman Gene Taylor of MS said he would have voted for Bush because his district gave him like 65%, so he'll almost certainly get 3 of the 4 votes in MS for another delegation. The GOP is in control of the House delegations in FL, GA (the RATs may cut the GOP edge there to 7-6 by defeating Max Burns, but it is highly unlikely they can beat Phil Gingrey and reelect Jim Marshall to take the majority), SC, NC (the RATs take over if they beat Robin Hayes, but they are unlikely to do so), VA, KY, AL, OK, MO, PA, OH, MI, IN, IL, IA, NE, KA, NM (although, as usual, Heather Wilson will face a strong challenge which, if successful, will give the RATs control), AZ, NV, UT, WY, ID, MT, AK, NH, DE and CT (although the 3 CT Republicans are RINOs, and if one votes for Kerry it will throw him the delegation's support. Even without CT, that's 29 state delegations that will probably vote for Bush, and I haven't even mentioned SD (which will have a competitive House race in its lone seat), ND (where Duane Sand will be challenging Pomeroy in this very Republican state) or TN (where if a Republican can beat either Tanner, Gordon or Davis we would control the delegation again). But, hopefully, Bush will win with over 375 electoral votes and we won't have to worry about how House delegations would have voted.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Actually, Iowa has 5 House seats, 4 held by Republicans and 1 by a Democrat.

[AuH2ORepublican]

BTW, I didn't place the Lousiana House delegation in the GOP column (it currently has 4 Republicans and 3 Democrats) because I don't have a clue of what it will look like come January of 2005! As shanscom knows better than any of us, if Jim McCrery retires, there are going to be 4 highly competitive House races in LA, 2 in districts held by retiring Republicans McCrery and Billy Tauzin, 1 in a district held by retiring Democrat Chris John (who's running for the Senate) and 1 in the very conservative 5th CD that was won by Democrat Rodney Alexander in a huge upset in 2002.

[jack gillis]

Interesting.

I guess I was thinking back a few years in IA.

Chris John's seat will stay Dem. (I lived in it for ten years) and McCrery's will stay GOP. The GOP blew the 5th district when they let a good-ole-boy Dem win it last time, so control will hinge on Tauzin's district.

Looks like GOP does have a lock on delegations.

[Kuksool]

When Walter Mondale was defeated in 2002, it was a definite sign that things are changing in MN. I think Jesse Ventura had a hand in that. He really made young people rethink their political alignments.