Posted on 05/31/2004 8:34:04 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon
This graph shows us where we need to work harder and put in extra effort. To all those living in red or pink states (and I am one in the pink state of OR) this is your call to arms so to speak. Lets get involved in your local community and find out what you can do.
It sure would be nice to get one of the big states like NY or Calif.
Same as the last 2 weeks...I sure would like to see an upward trend.
I'm with you...
Interesting statistics. See also http://congress.org/congressorg/pyv/stats/?action=stats for a different perspective.
The most vivid reminder of WHY the electoral college is soooo very important...elsewise the large population centers ( cotoes on the coasts) would dominate every aspect of our political life. Thank you God for allowing us to have such visionary founders
Check the state with most illegal aliens---- Immigration cost Republican seats
Redistricting impacted by wave of new legal, illegal residents
The heavy influx of immigrants cost the Republican Party nine House seats during the 2000 political redistricting process, according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
One of those seats was lost as a result of illegal aliens being counted as part of the national population by the U.S. Census Bureau, the report's authors concluded.
The report, "Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment," was produced by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Dudley Poston, a Texas A&M sociology professor and author of the CIS report, examined how congressional seats would have been reapportioned if the Census Bureau had not counted naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents, illegal aliens and those on long-term temporary visas.
Among the report’s findings:
The presence of illegal aliens in other states caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House in 2000, while Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have.
Illegal immigration not only redistributes seats in the House, it has the same effect on presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.
The presence of all non-citizens in the Census redistributed a total of nine seats. The term "non-citizens" includes illegal aliens, legal immigrants and temporary visitors, mainly foreign students and guest workers. In addition to the four states that lost a seat due to the presence of illegal aliens, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Utah each had one fewer seat than they otherwise would have.
None of the states that lost a seat due to non-citizens is declining in population. The population of the four states that lost seats due to illegal immigration increased 1.6 million in the 1990s, while the population of the five states that lost seats because of other non-citizens grew by two million.
Immigrant-induced reapportionment is different from reapportionment caused when natives relocate to other states. Immigration takes away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens and results in the creation of new districts in states with large numbers of non-citizens.
In the nine states that lost a seat due to the presence of non-citizens, only one in 50 residents is a non-citizen. In contrast, one in seven residents is a non-citizen in California, which picked up six of these seats. One in 10 residents is a non-citizen in New York, Texas and Florida, the states that gained the other three seats.
The numbers are even larger in some districts — 43 percent of the population in California’s immigrant-heavy 31st district is made up of non-citizens, while in the 34th district, 38 percent are non-citizens. In Florida’s 21st district, 28 percent of the population is non-citizen, and in New York’s 12th district the number is 23 percent.
The large number of non-citizens creates a tension with the principle of "one man, one vote" because it takes so few votes to win these immigrant-heavy districts. In 2002, it took almost 100,000 votes to win the typical congressional race in the four states that lost a seat due to illegal aliens, while it took fewer than 35,000 votes to win the 34th and 31st districts of California.
Although the number of naturalizations increased in the 1990s, the number of non-citizens still increased dramatically to 18.5 million in 2000, up from 11.8 million in 1990 and seven million in 1980.
illegal alien population in California since 1992 increase 24%,Florida 20%,New York 20%,North Carolina 18%,Ohio 18%,
Pennsylvania 18%,Washington 20%,Michigan 20%
Electoral Votes California 55 ,Florida 27 , Michigan 17 ,New York 31,Ohio 20 ,Pennsylvania 21, North Carolina 15 ,Texas 34 , illegal alien population in Texas since 1992 increase 22%
Forget Florida for this election. It will be over already when Bush wins either Pennsylvania or Ohio.
The bid/asked spread for Pennsylvania is 48.0 bid 51.7 asked; the mean is 49.85, so that state should be recorded as leaning to John Kerry, and the projected electoral vote totals change to 283 for Bush, and 255 for Kerry.
The 2000 result sure didn't track with the polls either. Looking at the State list, nothing looked odd to me. if their numbers are even close, it's Dubya whuppin' kerry like a rented mule on Election Day.
I only use the mean of the bid and ask prices if the last price is 50.0.
In the case that the mean of the bid and ask prices is also 50.0, then the tie goes to John Kerry due to voter fraud.
| Date | Prob. Bush Win | Mean EVs | Std. Dev. |
| 01/21 | 96.8% | 341.5 | 41.1 |
| 01/26 | 95.5% | 334.8 | 40.6 |
| 02/02 | 92.2% | 323.8 | 39.7 |
| 02/09 | 83.0% | 307.8 | 40.3 |
| 02/16 | 78.4% | 300.4 | 39.4 |
| 02/23 | 76.2% | 298.2 | 39.6 |
| 03/01 | 74.5% | 295.9 | 39.3 |
| 03/08 | 68.0% | 289.2 | 39.8 |
| 03/15 | 68.0% | 288.8 | 39.0 |
| 03/22 | 68.5% | 289.3 | 38.8 |
| 03/29 | 69.4% | 290.1 | 38.8 |
| 04/05 | 71.2% | 292.3 | 39.1 |
| 04/12 | 70.4% | 290.6 | 38.1 |
| 04/19 | 68.6% | 288.1 | 36.7 |
| 04/26 | 64.9% | 284.5 | 36.3 |
| 05/03 | 66.3% | 285.7 | 36.3 |
| 05/10 | 65.6% | 285.3 | 36.8 |
| 05/17 | 65.2% | 284.8 | 36.6 |
| 05/24 | 60.0% | 280.3 | 36.9 |
| 05/31 | 61.1% | 281.2 | 36.8 |
Thanks jdege!
For three years and five months, the world leftist community has been trying to undermine Bush in every possible manner. This chart is and indication of their failure because they have not brought his electoral vote total below the "magic number" despite all their attempts to date. There will be more outrages from the left but the curve is essentially bottoming out. At some point, they will reach diminishing returns.
I disagree with this remark. They don't fluctuate or hang on every poll, but their overall results have been and are in harmony with the polls IMO. They are showing a close race, with Bush having a slight lead, with that lead having lessened a bit since March.
Here is evidence Bush is still ahead by a slight amount:
1) Dales web site, which tracks all the state polls, gives Bush an effective popular vote advantage of about 1.5%.
2) The Rasmussen poll, which doesn't include Nader as a factor and uses a loose Likely Voter screen (both assumptions which favor Kerry) continue to show a dead heat (meaning Bush probably has a slight lead).
3) The Iowa trading site also shows Bush with a slight lead (and actually slightly lengthening the lead recently).
4) The most recent Fox poll, although it shows Bush and Kerry tied overall, shows Bush with a 6 point lead in the battleground states.
5) From an EV standpoint, the latest Ohio poll (by the most accurate state polling firm last time around) shows Bush ahead by 6 points. There are many reasons to expect Bush to take Florida this time around. Bush is doing well is several Gore states from last time (PA, MI, OR, WI, IA, MN) and only NH right now, according to most recent polls, looks like possibly flipping, so Bush looks to be slightly ahead from an EV perspective as well.
One could make an argument that Kerry has a slight lead, but it's a tenuous argument, certainly not strong enough to suggest that tradesports.com results "certainly don't track with the polls."
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.