Skip to comments.
2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 2/23/2004
TradeSports.com ^
| Monday, February 23, 2004
| Momaw Nadon
Posted on 02/23/2004 1:35:06 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
State |
% Chance of Bush Winning |
Bush Electoral Votes |
Dem Electoral Votes |
Alabama |
95.0 |
9 |
0 |
Alaska |
94.0 |
3 |
0 |
Arizona |
75.0 |
10 |
0 |
Arkansas |
70.0 |
6 |
0 |
California |
18.0 |
0 |
55 |
Colorado |
80.0 |
9 |
0 |
Connecticut |
20.0 |
0 |
7 |
Delaware |
35.0 |
0 |
3 |
District of Columbia |
2.0 |
0 |
3 |
Florida |
68.0 |
27 |
0 |
Georgia |
90.0 |
15 |
0 |
Hawaii |
13.0 |
0 |
4 |
Idaho |
95.0 |
4 |
0 |
Illinois |
30.0 |
0 |
21 |
Indiana |
87.0 |
11 |
0 |
Iowa |
42.0 |
0 |
7 |
Kansas |
91.5 |
6 |
0 |
Kentucky |
88.0 |
8 |
0 |
Louisiana |
80.0 |
9 |
0 |
Maine |
39.0 |
0 |
4 |
Maryland |
17.5 |
0 |
10 |
Massachusetts |
4.0 |
0 |
12 |
Michigan |
47.0 |
0 |
17 |
Minnesota |
41.0 |
0 |
10 |
Mississippi |
94.0 |
6 |
0 |
Missouri |
65.0 |
11 |
0 |
Montana |
91.0 |
3 |
0 |
Nebraska |
95.0 |
5 |
0 |
Nevada |
65.0 |
5 |
0 |
New Hampshire |
58.0 |
4 |
0 |
New Jersey |
16.0 |
0 |
15 |
New Mexico |
58.0 |
5 |
0 |
New York |
15.0 |
0 |
31 |
North Carolina |
85.0 |
15 |
0 |
North Dakota |
95.0 |
3 |
0 |
Ohio |
65.0 |
20 |
0 |
Oklahoma |
93.0 |
7 |
0 |
Oregon |
39.0 |
0 |
7 |
Pennsylvania |
49.0 |
0 |
21 |
Rhode Island |
5.0 |
0 |
4 |
South Carolina |
87.0 |
8 |
0 |
South Dakota |
95.0 |
3 |
0 |
Tennessee |
85.0 |
11 |
0 |
Texas |
93.0 |
34 |
0 |
Utah |
95.0 |
5 |
0 |
Vermont |
7.0 |
0 |
3 |
Virginia |
85.0 |
13 |
0 |
Washington |
35.0 |
0 |
11 |
West Virginia |
47.0 |
0 |
5 |
Wisconsin |
49.0 |
0 |
10 |
Wyoming |
95.0 |
3 |
0 |
Totals |
|
278 |
260 |
TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Unclassified; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2004; bush; election; electionpresident; electoral; electoralvote; electoralvotes; georgebush; georgewbush; gwb2004; president; presidentbush; presidential; vote; votes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
To: Momaw Nadon
my guess is GWB wins big time
21
posted on
02/23/2004 2:02:26 PM PST
by
The Wizard
(democrats are enemies of America)
To: Momaw Nadon
I think there's a strong possibility that these numbers we see here could end up being the actual numbers in the election. Bush can most definitely win, but anyone who stills entertains notions of a landslide is simply deluding himself.
22
posted on
02/23/2004 2:06:22 PM PST
by
jpl
To: Numbers Guy
Don't count on GWB taking NM! Everyone who has lived in this state since Don Juan Onate always votes RAT!
23
posted on
02/23/2004 2:06:24 PM PST
by
wjcsux
(Friends don't let friends vote DemoRAT!)
To: So Cal Rocket
I agree, though Edwards, with anyone-for-VP, would do even better against Bush - especially since Edwards does not have such a "flip/flop on the issues" record as Kerry does.
However, a Kerry/Gephardt ticket may squeek by - on the economic issues, especially.
P.S. IMHO, Florida is still in play for the Dems. After, certain senile, idiot voters in Palm Beach County won't have Buchanan to vote for again. ;-)
24
posted on
02/23/2004 2:06:58 PM PST
by
MagnusMaximus1
(True conservatives: Neo-conned into a war that may lead to Dubya's loss)
To: So Cal Rocket
Class warfare specialist Gephardt would about sew up the job losses issue for the Rats, and probably delivery MO for the Rats. I don't see how Bush could counter that loss. Bush is also going to have a tough time with NV because of Yucca Mountain. The Rats will demagogue him to death on it. Partisan warrior Harry Reid is already sharpening his knives for that one. Bush probably has to pick off MN and NM to counter that. NM is problematic because of Richardson, who will make the vote fraud of 2000 there look like child's play. Others have talked about Minnesota. All I can say to that is, Mondull over Reagan in '84, and Jesse V. just a few years ago. Kerry has to have the advantage.
Sorry to seem pessimistic, but I think we have to run like we're behind. Thinking it's going to be a blowout for Bush is the surest way to lose. We tried that in the lead-up to '92 and it backfired big time.
25
posted on
02/23/2004 2:10:05 PM PST
by
chimera
To: PetroniDE
I went ahead and did this. For example, in Texas, where there are 34 EV and Bush is assigned a 93% of winning, he gets only 31.62 EV assigned to him. Conversely, in Kerry states, Bush gets a portion of those EV. For example, in California, where Bush is only assigned an 18% chance of winning, he gets 9.9 of the 55 EV in that state.
So...drum roll please, here are the projected results:
BUSH - 307.075 EV
KERRY - 230.925 EV
26
posted on
02/23/2004 2:10:21 PM PST
by
SamAdams76
(I do not like the new "Starbucks-style" coffee lids at Dunkin' Donuts)
To: chimera
And sending Mankiw and Snow out to shoot their mouths off and shoot themselves in the foot won't help things. Mankiw merely had the lack of tact to tell the truth about what the Bush policy is.
27
posted on
02/23/2004 2:15:11 PM PST
by
Shermy
To: Momaw Nadon
Pennsylvania 49.0 (chance of Bush winning) 21 Electoral Votes All the more reason to pick Rick Santorum as V.P. Those are 21 votes the Dems would find it almost impossible to make up. Having a Northeasterner and a Catholic might help in other battleground states (e.g. NH, OH, MI, NJ, WV)
Bush would probably still earn Wyoming's 3 votes with Cheney relegated to State, Defense or Chief of Staff.
28
posted on
02/23/2004 2:17:06 PM PST
by
Plutarch
To: So Cal Rocket
Bush loses West Virginia? With gun grabbing Kerry as his opponent? I don't think so.
He might lose there to Edwards or a southern Dem, maybe, but I don't think the folk from WV are gonna vote for a Massachusets gun grabbing liberal.
They didn't go for Gore, and given that, I don't see how they can go for Kerry.
To: Momaw Nadon
Still significant advantage Bush.
In Kerry's closest states he's at:
PA 51%
WI 51
WV 53
MI 53
IA 58
MN 59
ME 61
OR 61
WA 65
Meanwhile in Bush's closest states, the President is up:
NH 58%
NM 58
MO 65
NV 65
OH 65
FL 68
And Bush has the EC lead.
To: Momaw Nadon
Everyone should take a close look at the John Kerry contract - if ever there was a bubble stock / contract, this is it. Can't wait for the collapse - too bad we can't short him!!
31
posted on
02/23/2004 3:01:50 PM PST
by
rotstan
To: So Cal Rocket
Bush loses Michigan (-17 electoral votes)
Bush loses Pennsylvania (-21 electoral votes)
Well, those aren't changes from last week, those are optimistic predictions that were never likely to come to pass. Things may still swing that way, but I doubt it.
To: rotstan
![](http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/graph/con_6227_lifelarge.gif?1077577656)
John Kerry to be 2004 Democratic Presidential Nominee
33
posted on
02/23/2004 3:11:53 PM PST
by
Momaw Nadon
(Goals for 2004: Re-elect President Bush, over 60 Republicans in the Senate, and a Republican House.)
To: rotstan
![](http://www.tradesports.com/jsp/graph/con_11738_lifelarge.gif?1077577952)
George W Bush is re-elected as United States President.
34
posted on
02/23/2004 3:14:38 PM PST
by
Momaw Nadon
(Goals for 2004: Re-elect President Bush, over 60 Republicans in the Senate, and a Republican House.)
To: chimera
I am tired of people thinking that Gephart can deliver MO just because he lives there. He NEVER ran a statewide race.
Additionally, if he had such drawing power with unions, why did he come in 4th in IA????
35
posted on
02/23/2004 3:18:06 PM PST
by
raloxk
To: Shermy
no Mankiw is an idiot because he doesnt know the difference between a faculty launge at a university and the real political world
36
posted on
02/23/2004 3:19:58 PM PST
by
raloxk
To: Momaw Nadon
Interesting chart. They had Kerry down below what appears to be 5% then up over 90%. It might call into question the abiltities of this website to come up with good numbers. Of course, a 5% chance still means there's a chance, which means that fortunes can change quickly, but too many more graphs like that would have to seriously make one wonder as to their methodology.
37
posted on
02/23/2004 3:30:15 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
To: 11th_VA
"Man, the DU would go crazy, riots in the streets, I think that's gonna happen if Bush wins anyway..."
Riots in the streets? They don't even follow up on their promises to leave the country. Riots in the streets? 100, 000 mimes pretending to walk against the wind?
Well, if there are riots in the street, just make sure your ammo locker is well stocked.
38
posted on
02/23/2004 3:34:06 PM PST
by
olde north church
(American's aren't more violent, we're just better shots!!!)
To: Momaw Nadon
Ohio at 65% for Bush is a stretch if recent reports of that being a battleground state are accurate
39
posted on
02/23/2004 4:47:37 PM PST
by
Tennessean4Bush
(An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true.)
To: Tennessean4Bush
65% is still pretty "battlegroundish". If you were told there's only a 65% chance you'll keep your job, I think you might start getting a little concerned.
40
posted on
02/23/2004 6:16:11 PM PST
by
inquest
(The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 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