2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 5/10/2004

TradeSports.com ^ | Monday, May 10, 2004 | Momaw Nadon

[no dems]

Thanks for the info. I hope you're right about Ohio and Pennsylvania. I can more readily believe that the Prez has a chance in Ohio than PA. But, this is encouraging. Thanks again.

Your total for Bush is 6 less than the latest Fox News Projection.

[no dems]

We must keep one thing in mind. We have a different electoral college than we did in 2000. After the 2000 census, the electoral votes increased in the states that went for Bush in 2000 and decreased in the states that went for the Dem-o-rats (Gore). So, the 2000 census gave us about 10 more electoral votes than we had in 2000 if my memory serves me correctly.

[Integrityrocks]

I look forward to these posts each week. I am not a gambler but I think anyone who hasn't made up their mind already that they either are for Bush or they hate him, will swing to the Bush side. Kerry is just too over the top for any swing voter.

[gundog]

I think Pennsylvania and Ohio are toss ups. Otherwise I would say its accurate.

Oregon may be in play, as well. The U of O did a poll about 6 weeks ago that put Bush at(I believe) 46% in a 3 way race...go, Ralphie, go! The most virulent anti-Bushies that I have to deal with have one thing in common...they don't vote.

[marblehead17]

ping

[So Cal Rocket]

I think anyone who hasn't made up their mind already that they either are for Bush or they hate him, will swing to the Bush side. Kerry is just too over the top for any swing voter.

I pray you are correct... however, it has been shown that the "undecideds" usually swing against the incumbent (or against the incumbent party) on a 2:1 ratio. I'd have to go back and look up that research, but I'm thinking it may only apply to "undecideds" close to election time.

[jla]

The traders need to add a minimum of 96 votes to the W column. :^)

[no dems]

You're right; the undecided voter usually goes against the incumbent. But, anything can happen between now and November 2. Bush is a man of integrity and there will be no immoral missteps on his part. (This Iraqi prisoner abuse "scandal" will not stick to him.) But, Kerry and the Dems in general are so amoral, they're not above anything and it will be exposed. I really hope that they keep Teresa Heinz Kerry out there. She's a loose cannon.

[dufekin]

It's far too early to think about that factor.

I say these people are right on the money. Right now, I have Bush ahead 304-234, as do they. New Mexico is interesting. The only major disagreement I have is with Vermont. I'd have Bush closer to 15% there.

If polls are accurate, California and New Jersey could prove close, but the gamblers aren't exactly buying that.

Delaware is one state, a traditional bellwether that went hard-left in 2000, from which I'd like to see polls. Right now, I've got it tentatively as "Certainly Kerry," but only because Gore won so heavy there. Perhaps I should reclassify as "likely Kerry," given Bush's apparent relative success in Pennsylvanian and New Jersey.

[DM1]

i know about the census and that it does work in our favor
God i hope that Bush wins this thing

[Graybeard58]

The most virulent anti-Bushies that I have to deal with have one thing in common...they don't vote.

I've noticed that too. I wonder why?

[brownsfan]

I agree. Many people who vote are uninformed, and vote for things that impact them in daily life. The price of gas. There are lots of big vehicles on the road today with drivers who aren't too happy about shelling out $50 to fill them up. The price of gas could be a huge issue in November.

[Krodg]

Disclaimer...Please don't bother telling me that unions are evil...I know that already and I will not answer.

I suspect Bush will win this easier than anyone today believes, because I know Kerry will in fact "implode" if not before the debates, then during them.

I believe the imploding is already happening in some areas. Kerry probably polls well in hand-out areas, but with the union peons he is slipping. The last few elections, hubby never came home with feed back from fellow workers because he knew I wouldn't like the comments. This year he can't wait to relay a new message. True, I live in Bush country in southern Ohio, but the number of life-long Dems not voting for Kerry is encouraging. A few will vote Bush and some will stay home and that's good news.

I think pollsters know where to poll to get the results they want...but that doesn't really speak for either party.

[gundog]

Not a clue. But as a rule, I've found them to be clueless and likely to believe what the television tells them, so I don't really encourage them to register.

[WayneM]

I'm proud to live in Alabama, which, upon quick inspection, has the highest probability of a Bush win (98%).

The only bad thing about this situation is that we can't find any Dumocrats (or at least anyone who will admit to being one) to jeer and embarrass.

[Badeye]

Pre 9/11, yep, Kerry took Weld apart in those debates. I've always thought that was much more a comment on Weld's not being ready for prime time, than it was a sign Kerry was good at debating, to be honest.

But post 9/11? Outside of Taxachuettes?

I don't think Kerry will have a chance. His voting record wasn't nearly as important in the land of Teddy Kennedy in that Senate race as it will be this fall v Bush. Massachuttes does not reflect the nation as it is, only a small piece of it. There isn't a state that would elected Ted Kennedy outside of that one. And there are only a couple of states that would elected John Kerry as a Senator given his voting record.

Kerry can do well in a debate in a Senate race, with voters that are well known to be sympathetic to liberalism, in short. Given whats happened to liberals / democrats nationally however, in the past decade, I don't think he's going to play well beyond his home state, and those remaining liberal "bastions" such as New York (city) and other hot spots such as San Francisco.

We'll see......

[Badeye]

I live here in Southern Ohio as well, and what I get from the local democrats is embarrassed silence when asked about the DNC in general, or their candidate John Kerry in particular.

As for Unions, their time has come and gone. Reagan put a stake through its heart when he fired the Air Traffic Controllers, which to me was at least as important to our nation as was his fight against the Soviets.

[no dems]

I'm not trying to be funny but I truly believe that some of the reasons (AND THEY PROBABLY DO NOT APPLY TO THE BUSH HATERS YOU KNOW) for this are:

#1. Many Dems who hate Bush especially in the lower socio-economic ladder are unstable in their places of residence and therefore do not have a valid voter registration.

#2. Many are from households where things like civic duty and responsibility is not a value.

#3. Many of them are dependent on government handouts for their subsistence and are too lazy to go vote just like they are too lazy to work. Trust me on this one.

#4. And finally, some of them don't wake up and sober up until almost time for the polls to close and then they don't have time to go vote they have to go buy a 40 ouncer or smoke some more crack or go visit their illegitimate baby's mama and make another baby.

[Red Badger]

Most states do not allow FELONS to vote.........

[no dems]

That's one that I omitted in my post. Thanks.