Skip to comments.
Electoral College Breakdown, March 7th Update
ECB2004 ^
| 3/6/04
| Dales
Posted on 03/06/2004 6:13:37 PM PST by Dales
Edited on 03/07/2004 4:52:47 AM PST by Admin Moderator.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
To: KQQL
Northeast Ohio is bleeding population. Northeast Ohio is a haven for Democrats.
To: Dales
Very interesting. Thanks for your work.
42
posted on
03/06/2004 9:55:17 PM PST
by
PGalt
To: KQQL
WA will be close. The new Bush ads are already airing and there will be good turnout to vote Murry out.
There's alot of people supporting Ft Lewis troops who are in Iraq right now.
But will it be enough ?
43
posted on
03/06/2004 10:00:50 PM PST
by
america-rules
(It's US or THEM so what part don't you understand ?)
To: JLS
"G.W. Bush is also more of a conservative "
Maybe in his public persona, but as far as any legislation, he is a far bigger spender and government expander than his father.
To: WoofDog123
Sure, but G.W. Bush has:
1. Reduced taxes and not gone back and raised them.
2. Supported a defense of marriage ammendment not signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act. [No matter what you think of it, the Americans with Disabilities Act is government intervention in the market place.]
3. Appointed conservative Judges in the face of blocking in the Senate not appointed Justice Souter to the US Supreme Court. Imagine G.H.W. Bush had to use up political capital to get this captive of the Beltway through the Senate.
The budget and spending is one issue. But there are many otehr ways to be a conservative. G.W. Bush seems pretty conservative to me compared to his centerist father.
45
posted on
03/06/2004 10:22:34 PM PST
by
JLS
To: KQQL
I mostly agree with this (from intuition) except I think OH and NV are leaning GOP. In particular, I can't see Bush winning the election, nor it being particularly close, if he loses Ohio.
46
posted on
03/06/2004 11:37:58 PM PST
by
TomEwall
To: TomEwall
True, but I think OH is a slight GOP lean to a toss up same with NV @ this time.
47
posted on
03/07/2004 12:35:11 AM PST
by
KQQL
(@)
To: Dales
The following states were extremely close (2%) in 2000:
Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin. Of these Bush only won Florida and New Hampshire. The only one of these states which to my mind seems markedly different than last time is New Hampshire (being a border state for Kerry). Giving this state to Kerry would result in Bush still winning because of the difference in how the electoral college is apportioned by states this time (I think).
The following states were close (2% to 5%): Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Tennessee and Washington.
Bush seems to be in good shape if the election is close because last time he won even though he lost 5 of the 7 super close states. Giving away New Hampshire, he still wins. So if Bush wins Florida, he should be in good shape.
That is to say, if Bush wins Florida, he can improve over 2000 by winning any of IA, MN, WI, OR or NM, which were within 1%. Kerry would then probably have to win Ohio, because the other states that were close are already counted in the RAT column, except for Missouri, Nevada and Tennessee. TN is more GOP than last time, because it's not a home state, and MO and NV don't have enough electoral votes to make up for Florida, so Kerry would have to win Ohio. But if Kerry wins Ohio, I don't think the election will be close. So Bush would win if the election were close, provided he won Florida.
I have heard that Florida has become more GOP since 2000, meaning that if Bush were to lose Florida, the election probably wouldn't be close. So the conclusion is that Bush will win the election if it's close.
The underlying assumption behind all this is that things are the same in the states as they were in 2000. I'd be interested in knowing if there has been a move in states, such as what I heard about Florida.
48
posted on
03/07/2004 12:53:14 AM PST
by
TomEwall
To: farmfriend
BTTT!!!!!!
49
posted on
03/07/2004 3:07:12 AM PST
by
E.G.C.
To: Dales; nevergiveup; scan58; AuH2ORepublican; BoomerBob; Galatians513; onyx; KJacob; ...
A Sunday morning ping in case anyone was left off the list earlier.
IF you want on/off this ping list, please send a "Private Reply"
50
posted on
03/07/2004 3:31:08 AM PST
by
Neets
(“I now know Him in a more personal way that I have. It is as it was " Jim Caviezel)
To: JLS
We had a lot of voter fraud in Wisconsin in the 2000 election, smokes for votes, Marquette students admitted to voting multiple times, felons voting, etc... We lost President Bush by 5,708 votes, or 0.22%. There has been some interesting things going on here, a Rat was recalled from the Milwaukee county exec position, replaced by a conservative. Feingold barely won his senate seat. Our democrat AG was arrested for drunk driving. The WI House just voted for a constitutional amendment to ban homo marriages, 69-27 (off the top of my head, might be slightly different numbers there) which is headed to the senate. Our rules are, it has to pass twice, so we could be voting on this referendum as early as April 2005. I hope these anecdotes are telling as to how Wisconsin will vote for the President.
Comment #52 Removed by Moderator
To: Dales
Thanks for you efforts!
To: farmfriend; Dales
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the fascinating info!
Looks , right now, like a close election unless Bush can get people aroused again about the War on Terror!
54
posted on
03/07/2004 7:17:11 AM PST
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States - and war is what they got!!!!)
To: raloxk
GHW Bush lost his congressional seat because he was too loberal on race relations President Bush 41 was in fact liberal on civil rights, for a southern congressman, in the late 60's. However he was in the same position most Republicans were at the time and was in agreement with the Texas 7th district he represented.
He did not run for reelection in 1970, and ran against Lloyd Bentsen for the Senate and lost.
55
posted on
03/07/2004 7:20:45 AM PST
by
HoustonCurmudgeon
(PEACE - Through Superior Firepower)
To: HoustonCurmudgeon
I thought he was defeated in 1968
56
posted on
03/07/2004 7:21:48 AM PST
by
raloxk
To: Galactic Overlord-In-Chief
Even my own state of Massachusetts almost voted to abolish the income tax a few years ago, and we're #49 or #50 on the list of states likely to go for the Pubbie in a national election. There's a disconnect between how people vote on state tax increases (always no) and how they'll vote nationally.
To: raloxk
I thought he was defeated in 1968 No, he first won in 66 and was reelected in 68. Bill Archer took the seat in 70 when Bush ran for Senate. I was 16 in 66 and worked many hours on his campaign and came in to town from UT Austin to help in 68, even appearing on the old Alvin van Black KTRH radio show with the Congressman.
58
posted on
03/07/2004 7:52:27 AM PST
by
HoustonCurmudgeon
(PEACE - Through Superior Firepower)
To: HoustonCurmudgeon
thanks, that must have been one of the few GOP held seats in TX at that time
59
posted on
03/07/2004 7:53:46 AM PST
by
raloxk
To: raloxk
I believe that we held one in the panhandle and Bush was the second, though we might have had one in Dallas. We held no statewide offices and had Senator Tower, gained in a special election to replace VP LBJ when 7 dims ran and Tower.
60
posted on
03/07/2004 7:57:03 AM PST
by
HoustonCurmudgeon
(PEACE - Through Superior Firepower)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson