Electoral College Breakdown 2004, April 14th Update

ECB 2004 ^ | 4/14/04

[AuH2ORepublican]

"But if Bush does carry the Garden State, Kerry might as well make his concession speech early as Bush will rack up 350+ electoral votes."

---

Heck, if Bush carries NJ, I don't see how he won't get 400 electoral votes!

Great analysis on PA, by the way. If, God willing, Pat Toomey wins the GOP primary, I think it will guarantee Bush's victory in PA in 2004. If, however, RINO Arlen Specter gets the nomination, many conservatives will stay home, and turnout will be higher among Philly area RINOs who will vote for Kerry.

[TomEwall]

Here's what happened, more or less:
1) Original count, Bush ahead by ~ 1700
2) Automatic recount immediately began. Bush lead falls to ~300
3) Dems want to recount favorable counties for them, but don't have time. Lower court rules vote must be counted without re-recount.
4) SCOFLAW orders stay, reverses lower court decision, invents new law, picks arbitrary new time for re-recount to be done
5) Broward county finds 500+ votes for Gore. Dade counts about 1/4 of county, doesn't get done. Palm finishes just after the gun.
6) Absentee votes added to count, keeps Bush in the lead by a little over 500. Before the absentee votes were added back in (many of them military), Bush's lead had dropped to just over 100.
7) Bush's lead is certified.
8) SCOTUS sends back SCOFLA's decision (meaning original re-recount invalid; i.e. Broward county votes added for Gore were illegal, so Bush's lead was understated by whatever the Broward county votes were -- a little over 500 --meaning Bush's actual victory was over 1000. This was never pursued by Bush because there was no need to, so certified vote remained in record, even though it includes illegal Broward county votes)
9) Dems contest election. Lower court findings dissallow shenanagins. SCOFLA reverses lower courts by 1 vote, continues to write new law, orders recount of entire state, but without giving any guidelines.
10) Recount starts. Bush's lead drops temporarily to under 100. SCOTUS gives me wonderful birthday present by issueing stay. Recount stops. Gore never obtained a lead.
11) SCOTUS rules SCOFLA's decision was unconstitutional by 7-2 vote (violated equal protection clause). By 5-4 majority declares Bush the winner of Florida because there wasn't enough time to fix the problems for the recount and get Florida's electors in. (SCOFLA hung itself by making this date an important target. SCOFLA also killed Gore's chances - although recounts haves shown Bush would have won anyway - by issueing the stay before the contest period. Had they not done that, Gore would have had almost 2 weeks more time, which would have been enough time to fix the equal protection problems and do the state recount)

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Do you think the Prez will carry Florida by a more comfortable margin this time or do you think it will be close?"

---

I don't think it will be anywhere near as close this time, although it won't be a landslide either. Jeb won with 56% in 2002, but in a presidential election I don't think W. can get that high a percentage. My best guess right now would be Bush 52%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2% and others 1%.

[Momaw Nadon]

What software did you use to create the United States map with Electoral Vote data?

[Dales]

The map is from the Department of the Interior. I use Paint to change the colors. I used Ultimate Paint to crop and add the title bar to it.

[Momaw Nadon]

Thanks!

[1L]

I disagree with you. The only minions in the RAT party who actually think the Republicans commit fraud are those who are so stupid, they just believe what is told of them. The core RAT people that run things know they have nothing to fear from Republican fraud. For the most part, they use our virtue against us. Now, I'm not saying Republicans are perfect, but by and large there are no credible accusations of Republican fraud. The accusations against Republicans center around election judges actually enforcing the law and not letting unregistered voters vote.

When the RAT party accuses Republicans of fraud, they are doing one of two things: trying to shift the issue away from their own fraudulent activity, or (perhaps and) bragging about the fact that they got away with fraud and they know their accusation against Republicans will carry more weight than vice versa.

You have to understand a liberal: right and wrong are totally dependant upon whether you support liberal theology or not. If you do, you are right, lawful, and telling the truth. If not, you are wrong, illegal, and lying. It's no more complex than that.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Sort of misleading, though, since the Democrats have only run four non-Southerners since then, and two were against popular incumbents, and a third was in a race with George Wallace in it."

---

True, it is a bit misleading, but the fact remains that even when a Tennessean who served as VP to an Arkansan President at a time of apparent peace and prosperity ran for the Democrats in 2000, he managed to break 45% in just 3 Southern states (Gore got just under 49% in not-so-"Southern" Florida, a bit over 47% in his home state of Tennessee and a bit under 46% in Clinton's home state (and his neighboring state) of Arkansas). A Massachusetts liberal will have a very hard time doing as well in the South in 2004 as Dukakis did in 1988 (and Dukakis's best Southern state was Louisiana at 44.06%).

[nyconse]

During the 2000 election, I was driving home from work. I kept hearing that Georgia was too close to call....I remember thinking "wow, Bush is going to lose big if he can't even carry Georgia". I nearly didn't bother to vote. The weather was bad, and I was tired. However, I disliked the Clinton/Gore Administration so that I decided to vote anyway. We know now that the media was deliberately not reporting those states that President Bush had won, while claiming all close states breathlessly for Gore-some states that were later taken out of Gore's column.

Also, during the 2002 election, Republicans in Georgia were incensed that our right to vote had been compromised by Gov. Barnes "redistrictiing" (since thrown out by the courts). Teachers were angry at Barnes' betrayal of them-Georgia does not have tenure for teachers anymore. Other Geogian were angry at the high handed way the governor handled the flag issue-King Roy at his best. However, if you listened to all the available media, everyone expected that Barnes and Cleland would win hands down. The message was Republicans were wasting their time. Cleland's race might be close, but in the end he would defeat Chambliss. Barnes sneered at Perdue during the entire campaign. He reminded me of a southern Cuomo. He never believed he could be defeated. The polls had Barnes up by double digits for months. I don't believe that the polls were ever correct. I don't think Perdue voters emerged at the last moment. We were always voting against Barnes. Perdue wasn't my first choice. Although, he has done a pretty good job. As for Cleland, he ran as a moderate and then promptly joined the Teddy Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party. I think his vote to weaken the tax cut did him in. Although homeland security may have played a roll (unions over National security).

I am sorry to be so long winded- the point is you can't trust the media polls because they no longer seek to measure how the public will vote...they seek to shape the public's vote. For example, during the 2000 election the divided government question was in every poll- an obvious attempt to convince Americans that if the Republicans have the House and Senate then the Democrats need to have the presidency-the partisan media trying to shape public opinion-not reveal such opinion.

[Quicksilver]

Thanks. It was worse than I remembered.

[Political Junkie Too]

It looks like you made today's WSJ Opinionjournal Best of the Web.

The Jersey Swing?
Yesterday we noted a New Jersey poll that showed surprising strength for President Bush in the Garden State, which Al Gore carried by almost 16% of the vote. Turns out we weren't the first to make this observation; a few months ago, blogger Gerry Daly, who has been projecting the 2004 election results based on state-by-state polls, declared a "slight advantage for Bush" in New Jersey, based on earlier polls showing Bush ahead of an "unnamed Democrat."

Daly's current projections give Bush a "slight advantage" in two other Gore states (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) and one Bush state (New Hampshire). In addition, he rates five states "toss-ups": three Bush states (Florida, Ohio and West Virginia) and two Gore ones (New Mexico and Oregon). Kerry has the lead in the remaining 13 Gore states and the District of Columbia. If all states go according to Daly's prediction, Bush would win 272 electoral votes--just two more than a majority--vs. 202 for Kerry, with 64 too close to call.

Another election-prediction blog, by Scott Elliott, shows Kerry ahead with 291 electoral votes to 247 for Bush. Elliott's formula is based on nationwide polls and statewide margins of victory from 2000 but takes no account of state-to-state changes, so that Kerry's recent strength in the polls leads Elliott to project his victory in two Bush states--Florida and New Hampshire--along with all 20 Gore states.

-PJ

[Dales]

I saw, that is great! Thanks, Mr. Taranto and crew!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Link to more conecern over alleged Republican fraud. Why do the Conservatives on these boards want paperless voting?

[carton253]

What I found the most interesting thing in Sammon's book was how the networks called the states. States that Bush would win by 5-8 percent took upwards to 45 minutes to call. States that Gore would win by 2-3% were called within minutes. It made it seem like Bush was going to loose big.

[Dales]

I do not want paperless voting.

But what I would really like is VVPB. Punch cards and other forms of paper-only ballots have long been an area where voter fraud has been rampant. Give me a touch screen ballot, have it print out a receipt on carboned paper, one copy going to the voter to verify, one going into the machine, and voila.

Does away with stiff wires through entire stacks. And using certain algorithms, you could generate an encryption key code that could be printed on each paper copy that would indicate machine number, time vote cast, each vote made, and what sequential ballot number on the machine it was, making it so that it would be easy, on a recount, to tell if someone had tampered by either injecting fake receipts or removing valid ones.

Democrats always oppose such plans though. Why is that?

[Quicksilver]

FYI - New Survey USA Arkansas poll: Bush 47, Kerry 45

http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/AR040416president.pdf

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Counterpane" has more vote stuff. I'm getting the newsletter so I can't easily link. Schneier points out that the Dmocrats need to affect only 1 in 250 votes nationwide to grab control of the House.

[fhayek]

What I found the most interesting thing in Sammon's book was how the networks called the states. States that Bush would win by 5-8 percent took upwards to 45 minutes to call. States that Gore would win by 2-3% were called within minutes. It made it seem like Bush was going to loose big.

And the state that proved to be the closest call in the history of elections, the media called before the polls closed!

[Doctor Stochastic]

There is a (pdf) paper at http://www.stat.sfu.ca/alumni/Theses/Li-2004.pdf that seems to have done almost the same thing as I have with respect to simulating the election. I'll try to implement some of his ideas if applicable.