2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 6/14/2004

TradeSports.com ^ | Monday, June 14, 2004 | Momaw Nadon

[Momaw Nadon]

State	% Chance of Bush Winning	Bush Electoral Votes	Kerry Electoral Votes
Alabama	94.1	9	0
Alaska	92.6	3	0
Arizona	68.1	10	0
Arkansas	69.1	6	0
California	14.4	0	55
Colorado	80.9	9	0
Connecticut	8.1	0	7
Delaware	18.1	0	3
District of Columbia	0.9	0	3
Florida	59.9	27	0
Georgia	91.1	15	0
Hawaii	9.8	0	4
Idaho	96.9	4	0
Illinois	11.1	0	21
Indiana	94.9	11	0
Iowa	44.9	0	7
Kansas	92.1	6	0
Kentucky	87.1	8	0
Louisiana	84.9	9	0
Maine	19.9	0	4
Maryland	11.1	0	10
Massachusetts	5.9	0	12
Michigan	36.9	0	17
Minnesota	33.9	0	10
Mississippi	94.9	6	0
Missouri	63.9	11	0
Montana	92.1	3	0
Nebraska	95.1	5	0
Nevada	63.1	5	0
New Hampshire	52.0	4	0
New Jersey	20.1	0	15
New Mexico	54.3	5	0
New York	9.9	0	31
North Carolina	83.9	15	0
North Dakota	94.1	3	0
Ohio	61.2	20	0
Oklahoma	98.9	7	0
Oregon	45.1	0	7
Pennsylvania	47.7	0	21
Rhode Island	4.1	0	4
South Carolina	91.9	8	0
South Dakota	93.1	3	0
Tennessee	86.9	11	0
Texas	98.8	34	0
Utah	94.6	5	0
Vermont	5.1	0	3
Virginia	82.1	13	0
Washington	24.9	0	11
West Virginia	63.0	5	0
Wisconsin	41.4	0	10
Wyoming	98.9	3	0
Totals		283	255

[Abram]

Sorry I am from Western Washington. A lot of the Republicans that I know are squishy...They are heavily influenced by a liberal media system and the media is crushing the President in every opportunity.

[goldstategop]

I think that's in the ballpark (pun intended ;-)) and both Tradesports and Iowa Political Futures Markets are more accurate than any poll since it involves people putting their money rather sentiment on a candidate. Its a good check against biased polls like the LAT poll that allegedy shows Kerry with a nationwide lead of seven; in that sample, a lot of people evidently lied to the pollsters and told them what they wanted to hear. President Bush is in good shape and he'll lose only in the event these real-world preference bids change before then. They're not mentioned in the partisan media, so these are probably a reflection of the true state of public opinion in the country.

[jaime1959]

> Bush gave Americans tax relief, not once, not twice, but three times. Bush has increased defense spending. And Bush remains a strong pro-life President. That's a pretty good conservative record. <

He also gave us the No Child Left Behind act and increases in education spending, a pork-laden farm bill, a pusilanamous response to Dems stonewalling judicial nominees, supports amnesty for illegal aliens, and supported Arlen "RINO" Spector over Pat Toomey.

Yeah, that's a good "conservative" record.

[jmstein7]

So, what are you going to do? Not vote and put the most liberal Democrat imaginable in the White House?

Not a good strategy, especially considering the number of federal judges retiring in the near future.

[jaime1959]

No, but I'm not going to pretend that George Bush is the reincarnation of Reagan, or that he's even a conservative; he just the lesser of two evils and quite a "lesser" at that.

I'm even thinking it might be good for the Pubs to lose this election. Maybe then they'll purge all Bushes and Bushites from the party. AFAIC, the Bushes are part of the Rockefeller wing of the party and not the heirs of Goldwater and Reagan.

[jmstein7]

"I'm even thinking it might be good for the Pubs to lose this election. Maybe then they'll purge all Bushes and Bushites from the party"

That's a moronic statement. Judges are forever... it's not worth it.

The cost of putting a radical liberal like Kerry in the position to appoint life-tenured, left-wing judges (who will defecate on the Constitution long after he is gone) is just too drastic.

[jdege]

The Monte Carlo results:

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
06/07	60.5%	280.6	36.5
06/14	65.0%	285.0	36.6

[inquest]

Interesting that they seem to be more sure of themselves now. They've upped their precision level to tenths of a percentage point.

[Reagan Man]

All issues are important to me, but there are four specific issues that stand out and get to the heart of the modern conservative movement in America today.

First. The federal government is required by the Constitution, to protect and defend US citizens and US interests from the enemies of freedom. To this extent, PresBush has shown he understands his Constitutional duties as CIC and will use the power of the US military to carry out those requirements.

Second. The goal of tax cuts and tax reform is critical to the conservative agenda and to a healthy economy. Once again, PresBush understands this and has given American workers three separate tax cuts. The Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001; The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002; The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003.

Third. Another goal of conservatism is a return to more limited government. This is achieved by reducing the money available to the federal government through lower taxation. Lower taxes equal less spending. In this regard, the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse in the bloated bureaucracy of WashDC should be a first priority to smaller government. On this issue, fiscal conservatives have been disappointed with PresBush. There are some extenuating circumstances that are part of this equation. The recession, 9-11 and the WoT wiped out the budget surplus and forced the government to spend more then it had, but it doesn't excuse the fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP Congress. The President ran for POTUS in 2000 on medicare reform and education reform. I supported his ideas for reform, but I don't support the excessive use of taxpayer funds on such liberal social programs. Conservatives generally support abolishing the education department and privatizing medicare and social security.

Fourth. For this one I'll quote Ronald Reagan, from "Abortion and the Conscience of A Nation".

"... we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

Like PresReagan, PresBush is a strong pro-life leader and his opposition to abortion on demand and thr right to life for all human beings, is fully consistent with the Constitution and the modern conservatrive agenda.

As for the issue of illegal immigration. Roughly 80% of Americans oppose amnesty for illegals and most Americans support sealing the borders shut. They also support using the US military to accomplish this goal. On this issue, I fully agree.

[Reagan Man]

See my RE:#69.

[Abram]

Read my manifesto on my profile. It encapsules what I think about the political world. Sorry, President Bush is definitely the lesser of two evils....but I think he is a good man and a good president. He has made some mistakes (I think invading Iraq was one of them), but who hasn't. He has the cajones to assess a situation, make a decision, and stick to his guns. I respect that about him. We are having a hard time keeping the peace in Iraq, but President Bush said this repeatedly right after 9/11. This is not over and it will be a very long battle. Lives will be lost...and they are being lost, but I prefer the battle be fought on foreign soil vs. in our shopping malls, airports, train stations, sports stadiums where U.S. innocents are kill/injured mercilessly.
I love peace and hope for the day that peace will reign again, but it won't for a very long time. Hatred against the west is really strong in the Middle East...coupled with generations of intolerance, suspect, and fanatical religious overtones).

[Reagan Man]

That's more like it. A little optimism goes a long way.

It's impossible to agree with someone on every issue. That includes a President of your own party. I try to pick and choose those issues that mean the most to me, viewed through my practical conservative viewpoint. When I take those issues that mean the most to me and bounce them off PresBush, I find myself in agreement with him roughly 70%-75% of the time.

However, I don't believe Bush is the lesser of two evils. I believe Bush is an instinctive conservative, more then an ideologue. More importantly, Bush supports many of the saame issues I do. OTOH, John Kerry is a liberal Democrat, who I have nothing in common with.

>>>Read my manifesto on my profile.

I gave it a quick look-see. One comment. Whether you and I like it or not, abortion is a political. In fact, its one of the hot button political issues of our time and the USSC made it so. Whatever the SC says, is law of the land. Remember, Marbury v Madison.

[91B]

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are about Kerry winning NC if Edwards is his VP. For starters no one has won re-election to Edwards' senate seat since Sam Ervin retired in the late 1970s. Edwards knew this and, taking into account his narrow win over a very poorly run Faircloth campaign in 1998 and the fact that any Republican would be running on Bush's coattails in a Presidential election year, Edwards decided to strike while his iron was still hot and try to make a name for himself on the national Democratic ticket.

Secondly, I don't know why the Marines would be crying over their deployment to Iraq-they only have to stay for a seven month rotation. All Army units-including the NCNG's 30th Brigade-have to pull a year. In any event military votes can't account for more than 5% of the state total (with Bragg, Pope, Seymour Johnson and Lejeune all taken into account) Bush won NC by 14% last time and should be able to cover a 5% margin easily.

We may not be able to take NC's senate seat this year, but we shouldn't worry about losing the states electoral votes.

[Momaw Nadon]

Thanks jdege!

[Momaw Nadon]

You know, I've been watching this poll since it's been on here. I just want to know, though, how close Tradesports.com did in the last election.

TradeSports.com has been in operation since 2002.

[Momaw Nadon]

If you want on (or off) of the weekly TradeSports.com Projected Presidential Electoral Vote ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail.

[doug9732]

A good summary of the election. It still comes down to three states: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

[inquest]

Whatever the SC says, is law of the land. Remember, Marbury v Madison.

That wasn't the holding in MvM.

[Reagan Man]

In Marbury v Madison, the USSC asserted its power to review acts of Congress. The outcome gave the SC power to invalidate whatever it determined as a conflict with the Constitution. Thereby establishing the courts power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. The SC under John Marshall emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the SC is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution. The result of this ruling set the standard that exists till this day.

[inquest]

In Marbury v Madison, the USSC asserted its power to review acts of Congress.

Actually it asserted its obligation to review acts of Congress. It's a subtle but important difference. The court is simply to determine whether a law is constitutional, not to decide whether it's consitutional. It has an obligation to determine correctly, but that doesn't mean that its determinations are automatically correct.

The SC under John Marshall emphasized that...the SC is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution.

He did not say that SCOTUS is the final authority. What he did say was this: "...a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

Clearly, according to him, the courts must conform to the law, not the other way around.