2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 3/29/2004

TradeSports.com ^ | Monday, March 29, 2004 | Momaw Nadon

[chimera]

Didn't he come within a hair's breadth of winning Ohio, which would have won him the Electoral Vote?

About 11,000 votes out of over 4 million cast. Pretty close. The final electoral count was 297-240 for Carter. If we shift 25 electoral votes, it goes to 272-265, similar to the 2000 result.

Certainly a few thousand (or hundred) votes here and there in key states can swing the election, as we all well know. I think we're in for that again this time around. People who think Bush is a shoo-in may be whistling past the graveyard. There are many, many people out there who hate Bush with a passion like I've never seen. The Rats are bound and determined to get even for what they think was a gyp in 2000. It's going to be played out state by state, precinct by precinct, voter by voter. Anyone who stays home for this one and thereby lets Kerry slip in deserves their fate.

[Keith]

Bush will win Missouri...you should have seen the lines of people waiting to get their CCW permits yesterday...

[Coop]

There are many, many people out there who hate Bush with a passion like I've never seen.

Unfortunately for them, that passion and the non-stop Bush bashing by the media translated into an incredibly low turnout for contested primary elections.

[Marathoner]

Unfortunately for them, that passion and the non-stop Bush bashing by the media translated into an incredibly low turnout for contested primary elections.

It seems to me that they're like we were in '96, motivated by anti-Clinton feelings but with a longtime Senator as a lackluster candidate.

Listening to f'n Kerry speak, I don't know how anyone can get excited about him. He definitely ain't no Clinton in the charisma department. If he was, Bush would probably be trailing by 10 points at this stage.

[Liz]

The key to Bush's victory is if Kerry's negatives keep rising. He's below 50% now and moving up. And when a politician hits negative 50% and over, they go ballistic.

We have to keep hammering away at the long legacy Kerry's left of saying and doing things that are not presidential. Taxacuhsetts elected him, that's a big plus for us. His stacks of waffling are made to order.

The VVAW assasination vote meeting is destined to push his negatives skyward. I'd like to see Ann Coulter do a detailed deconstruction of this meeting in book form.

Once we get Teresa out in the open, Kerry's negatives are gonna spike up.

Nice of Kerry to give us lots of things to play with.

[San Jacinto]

He's in excellent shape to pick up NM, WI, IA, and MN from last time.

I don't know if I would say "excellent", but I do agree there were a number of states that went to gore by a small margin that Bush could pick up this time around.

My current thinking is that it will either be Bush by a wide margin in the electoral vote (by his picking up those close state across the board), or its gonna be real, real close. In the latter case, Bush probably has to have Fla and OH, plus either Penn or Mo. to make 270.

[DJtex]

I ran all of these numbers thru the spreadsheet. My calculations are that even if every state's percentage went down by ten percentage points that Bush still wins by 8 EV (Electoral Votes)--NM & PA swing against him. If the Bush percentage by state moves up 5%, he wins by 90 EV, up 10% it's a 158 EV blowout.

My read is that where Bush is strong, he's very strong; and all the so-called toss-ups could go to Kerry (not likely) and we'd still win.

[onyx]

I find this interesting.

[LS]

This is higher than last week, is it not?

[JLS]

Right PA changing sides is the big news. The other changers this week are:

1. +8 for Bush: Minnesota
2. +5 for Bush: Delaware
3. +4 for Bush: Iowa
4. +3 for Bush: Michigan
5. +2 for Bush: Arizona, Pennsylvania and Tennessee
6. +1.5 for Bush: Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Mississippi
7. +1 for Bush: Col, Conn, Mont, OR, SC, Tx, UT and WY
8. +.5 for Bush: AR, CA, Maine, NJ, ND, Wis
9. -.5 for Bush: Hawaii, LA, MD, VA
10. -1 for Bush: Alaska, MA, Nevada, RI,
11. -2 for Bush: NH, Wash
12. -4 for Bush: Ohio

I think the rest stayed the same this week, but clearly I could be off by a state or two.

[myself6]

Not sure about the other states, but here in Wisconsin, the vote was tipped against Bush through voter fraud. I think the separation was 3000 votes.

We KNOW that many many college students went out and voted MULTIPLE times. All you need is a group of 300 students to go out and vote 10 times each to create the "extra" votes. I would say that Madison has many more students than that willing to do their "revolutionary" duty.

I guess the point of this is; what the hell are we going to do about STOPING voter fraud this time?! Instead of just talking about it and realizing it exists, actually getting off our fat asses and doing something. ANYTHING!

Even to the point of video taping polling places. Following suspicious vans and buses with video cameras. (may not be admissible as evidence in court but would be precious in efforts to galvanize a counterrevolutionary force) Volunteering to work the polls, not only in the safe republican areas but more importantly, in the democrat fraud zones. Tenacious attention to what is going on with the ballots and the people handling them (hidden cameras / voice recorders).

If YOU don't wish to "put yourself out" and do these things, then YOU will be required to do even more awful things when we ultimately lose our freedom to the socialists. Just answer these questions for yourself "what kind of people steal elections through voter fraud?". What are they capable of when they are successful? What will they do to retain what they have stolen? Take a look back through history for a guide to these answers.

This quote by Churchill is beginning to sound extremely prophetic as the days go by.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

If we cant live up to the first part of his quote, we WILL find ourselves in the second and third parts of his quote. I pray that we are NEVER relegated to the last bit in his quote by our own laziness and unwillingness to do the things that WILL make a difference.

[BlackRazor]

really is meaningless, since the EV's are a step function - either you get them or you don't, there is no "weighted average" or partial state with the EVs.

The weighted average is intended to show the statistically most likely EV total. These aren't real vote counts, so although the odds show Bush has a 51% of winning PA, there is uncertainty in that result, and a significantly high 49% chance he won't win it. Those probabilities have to be taken into consideration in the analysis, because, if they're accurate, it's unlikely one candidate runs the table in all the close states. Thus, the weighted average is statistically the more accurate value to present for an exercise like this. It's not intended to represent partial EV allocations from individual states.

[MeekOneGOP]

2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 3/29/2004

........................Bush........Jean Keri
........ Totals......299............ 239

[WOSG]

"I've read, somewhere, that, historically, incumbant races go large one way or the other"

I would disagree with that. We've had plenty of close races.

I would call 1992 a close race, but 1976 was close for sure. Another 2 weeks and Ford would have beaten Carter in 1976.

In every Presidential race since 1952, there has been some element of incumbency, either a president or a vice president of the previous term was on the ballot.
In addition to above close races add 1960 as a razor-thin election. Just like 2000, except Nixon in 1960 chose not to challenge the fraudulent win by Kennedy of Illinois. 1968 was close too.

Now I will say this much: Popular incumbents win blowout re-elections. We have had either 2 termers (Eisenhower, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton), Clinton had the narrowest re-election of the lot, about 8 points.

Had Buch 41 NOT had Perot on the ballot and had a campaign worth a tinker's dam, he could have won in 1992, it might have been a blowout had Clinton's real character been exposed (media bias alert!).

Bush has done a good job and I think *should* win an 8-12 point victory. Only media bias is keeping him down now. Negative media works and our liberal media have been like termites, eating at the foundation of Bush's popularity. There is nothing about polling or where people are on the issues that stops this from being a squeaker, but I *do* think 60% of Americans support Bush on his basic positions.

[San Jacinto]

You hit the nail on the head. Another wise Freeper posted today that we are in a fight to the death with the dems. I believe that to be so.

A big story that goes completely unreported is that dems are squarely in support of voter fraud as a matter of party philosophy. You cite Wisconsin student voter fraud. We all recall the SD Senate race in '02 and the fraud uncovered on Indian reservations. We remember MO in '00. We know about the big city machines in Chicago, Philly, Detroit and many other places. We know what MotorVoter was all about. I know what goes on in South Texas. In every case, it is the dems who perpetrate the fraud.

Just last week the legislative Black Caucus and House dems in MS stalled a bill to stiffen ID requirements for voters. It seems that requiring identification in order to vote is somehow a racist idea. No one bothered to explain why that would be.

Dems depend on fraud to win elections. As long as fraud helps the dems, it will be promoted by the dems and covered up by the press. You are correct that we must fight it locally in all parts of the country if we are to survive.

[dmanLA]

How to prevent expected voter fraud this November? Have a large pop-culture distraction on that day to deflect interest in those who would most likely participate in voter fraud. How about a big giveaway of some type? He he. I bet it would work too....

[chimera]

I was not counting a VP Presidential candidate as a Presidential incumbent, although a more general case could be made for doing so. By that reckoning, we'd have to throw in 2000, 1968, and 1960 as close races in some context. 2000 from an electoral standpoint, with 1960 and 1968 as popular vote close calls, but not so electorally.

So which race would be the most recent "non-incumbent" races, i.e., the candidates did not include either a President or Vice-President on the ballot? I guess it would be 1952 with Eisenhower/Nixon against Stevenson/Sparkman. Man, that's almost before my time (I was all of 8 months old for that one, and even I can't remember that far back).

[jayef]

How about a Nelly concert?

[JLS]

Nelly unplugged on A&E taking requests all day long election day?

[comebacknewt]

Coupled with a live Streisand concert on Lifetime.