TheAgitator.com
More Prognisticating
Friday, September 3rd, 2004Thanks to Bush’s recent bounde in the polls, the electoral map really is looking more and more like we could find ourselves with a tie. Right now, polls show Bush right at the 270 votes he needs to win, with Kerry at 252. Iowa and Colorado are tied. But Bush is leading in Pennsylvania, and Kerry is leading in Tennessee. I have a strong nunch that both of those are anomalies. In the end, the smart money says Bush will win Tennessee (he won it by 4 in 2000), and Kerry will Pennsylvania (which Gore won by 4). And if we go by recent history when assigning the two deadlocked states, Kerry witll take Iowa (barely Gore in 2000), and Bush will take Colorado (which he won by 8 in 2000).
As I’ve written before, that makes for a 269-269 tie.
So what about Colorado? Well, given that Gov. Owens and the GOP are painting the proportional assignment of electoral votes as a partisan issue (a vote yes helps Kerry, a vote no helps Bush), it’s probably a pretty good bet that if Bush wins Colorado, the ballot initiative will fail. If Kerry wins, it will pass. I just can’t see very many Coloradans voting for Bush, but then voting for a ballot initiative that could cost him the election. That makes the whole thing kind of a moot point. Much as I’d love to see the entertaining spectacle of James Baker and David Boies moving their 2000 Florida legal teams to Denver for round two, it just doesn’t look as if that’s going to happen.
If this year’s race is as close as last year’s, it’s more likely that we may get to see each House delegation vote for president. And that gets even more interesting. Because each member doesn’t get one vote, each state delegation does. So then the question becomes, will everybody vote along party lines? If so, you’d get some interesting paradoxes. Texas, for example, will likely go for Bush this November by twenty or more points. But it’s congressional delegation right now has more Democrats than Republicans, which means that unless the GOP could swing some conservative Democrats, Texas’ House vote would go for Kerry. Same for South Dakota, who’s lone representative is a Democrat.
On the other side, Connecticut, Maine and Delaware are all likely to go for Kerry. But all have GOP-majority congressional delegations. Will they all vote for Bush, even if their states as a whole voted for Kerry?
By the way, if everybody votes along party lines, Bush would get 30 votes, Kerry would get 17, and three delegations would split, and likely abstain.
But that’s for the 108th Congress. The law actually says that the votes would come from the new Congress. In a number of states, one party has just one or two more reps than the other. Just one seat switching hands could swing the state’s electoral tie vote the other way. If it gets close, we could have recounts and lawsuits all over the country.
All of this means that this election could end up being just as fun as the last one, despite the fact that our choices are just as dismal as last time. Then again, Bush could continue his climb in the polls, and none of this would matter.
But it sure is fun to speculate.
What your speculation doesn’t deal with
1)the swiftvets are not going away
2)Kerry has yet to face serious questioning by the press on this issue
3)much as the main-stream media would have liked to give him a pass on this, they can’t because of (a)the blogs and (b)in order to do so they have to overlook Kerry ducking them on everything else as well.
4)If Kerry doesn’t duck the press he has to deal with questions so toxic EVEN YOU WON’T TALK ABOUT THEM ON THIS BLOG! one,Why won’t you execute a form 180 and prove the swiftvets wrong? and two, Where were you on Christmas of 1968?
5)While there may be some negatives connected with the swifties, Dubya has avoided them by getting out in front on 527′s so it’s all plusses and no minuses
6)The evangelicals who are notorious for sitting home because ‘Jesus has a special place in them in heaven so why bother’(?) and sat home because of that silly DUI story last time around-are money in the bank. They will come down from the hills, from the forks in the creeks, crawling naked over broken glass to save the world from gay marriage and while they’re there–vote for Dubya.
7)The Republicans have,a man whose credibility as an independent has been created and enhanced by the mainstream media,McCAIN! We also got,RUDY!AHHNOLLD! ZELL MILLER! ED KOCH! and a growing list of 9/11 Democrats for Bush. What do y’all got?(answer,Michael Moore,Al Franken, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy-good,please keep ‘em)
This election is soooooo over.
I have to agree, Rocketman. Bush could still stumble or bumble enough to allow Kerry back in, but if he gets his way and cuts the debates down to two, a really major screw-up would be required.
Much as I’d like the tie, more for the controversy than the result, it’s over. Even the Dems here at work agree.
The Dems at my work feel the same way. All of us tried to watch both conventions, so we could debate them both with each other. As much as they hate to admit it they have agreed on this.
1. The GOP convention was more of a sucess.
2. Kerry needs to step-up and lead. If he can’t do it now, how can he if he wins.
3. If Bush doesn’t totally mess up on the debates, this election is over.
Quote: “All of this means that this election could end up being just as fun as the last one, despite the fact that our choices are just as dismal as last time.”
I disagree. I think the choices this election are much worse than last time around.
Honestly, if everyone could have seen what W would actually do as a president, would he have won his last election? In what way has he proven more positive than what he was sold as in ’00? We could dedicate an entire blog on ways he has proven more negative. I contend that he is a much worse choice this election than he was last time around.
I also contend that Kerry is a much worse choice than Gore was. From what I can see, there’s virtually no one planning to vote “for Kerry,” whereas last election there was little reason for people to vote “against Bush,” thus suggesting Gore was a much more favorable choice, at least in peoples’ opinions.
The same argument can be made for every election since ’88. I hope this disturbing trend reverses itself in short order, or we’re in serious trouble.
In 2000, Bush won New Hampshire by 7,000 votes. Had NH gone the other way, Gore would have had 270 electors and Florida would have been a nonissue. If John Kerry can win every state Gore won, all he needs is New Hampshire, which borders Kerry’s home state to the south and Howard Dean’s to the West. He doesn’t need Florida or Ohio.
Another possibility you have not considered in the House of Representatives scenario: What if every member simply voted the way his/her district voted?
I doubt anyone is doing district-by-district Presidential polling, so for the larger states, its anyone’s guess.
Also, Rocketman, are you sure the “Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth” ad has gotten all the play it will get? I tell you, THAT’S the story with legs!!
I’ve just conducted the most unscientific poll known to humanity! Yesterday morning I drove up to Warsaw, IN from Atlanta, GA and drove back late last night and today (no, it was NOT a drug run). I had seen several Kerry stickers on cars when I started to notice I hadn’t seen any Bush stickers. So I started counting. I could be off by as many as 5 on the Kerry side, but I think I counted about 33 Kerry stickers on fellow travelers’ vehicles. These were spread out all over, but I saw more in Kentucky/Indiana than anywhere else. I saw 3, count ‘em, 3, Bush stickers. Two were on SUV’s in Cobb County (the nobody-here-can-drive suburban hell county just north of Atlanta) and one was on a pickup truck (along with numerous mexican flag-type stickers) occupied by a family of presumed Mexicans in Tennessee.
Make what you will of it. 8)
(and for the record, 5 Libertarian-ish stickers, suspiciously all on compact pickup trucks)
The map has Indiana with 11 electoral votes, but we lost one with the last census — down to only 10.
Matt’s poll decides it- Kerry wins in November. :)
Seriously, I agree with Scared Stiff. The thing that disturbs me the most about many Republicans, especially conservative ones, is that they still support Bush, even while often admitting he has let them down. I’ve talked to too many Republicans who, when it comes down to it, their only arguement for supporting Bush is “Kerry would be worse”. I don’t see how he could be much WORSE on the things that conservatives supposedly hold dear. As Radley has stated with the “gridlock” arguement, a Kerry win is actually BETTER than a Bush win for real conservatives.
The other arguement in support of Bush is the War on Terror deal, and the Republican spin has convinced people that if Kerry were president, we’d stop going after Al Queda, and “let France decide our military issues”, which is patently ridiculous.
If there were an electoral tie, the first question becomes, does the popular vote loser simply concede to the other candidate? Before 2000, the answer to this might have been “no”. But after 2000, I think either candidate would have a hard time justifying a claim on the White House in the absence of popular victory.
And Radley forgot to mention that while the Houses chooses the president, the vice president is chosen by the Senate. A partisan split in the president-vice president is possible (perhaps this could form the basis of a deal, i.e. the Democrats let Bush take the presidency if he accepts Edwards as VP–making Edwards the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2008.)
Richard,
I’m a conservative who feels that way — that there are areas where I wish Bush had made different decisions — but I’m still voting for him. It’s all about priorities. I believe the only real job of the federal government is to defend the nation, which I think Bush does very well. I do not live in fear of terrorism, because I trust Bush’s judgment in that area. You and others on this blog may not trust him, which is fine, but many people do. Also, I sincerely believe he will not raise my taxes, deficit be damned. Congress needs to figure out how to spend less money on crappy social programs and pork projects, not Bush.
Everything else Bush does is lower priority to me. My congressman, my senators, and my state government should be handling the rest anyway.
I don’t trust Kerry on defense, and he has flat out said he’ll raise my taxes. So why would I vote for him? I’ve probably oversimplified this argument, but this is one explanation for you.
Also, I never have bought into the gridlock argument. Every congressman is out for him/herself more than the party. They’ll all keep throwing money at their constituents, regardless of party. The president sets the tone of where that money will go, and if it is going to be spent anyway, I’d rather see it go toward our military than universal health care.
But Cat, the problem is even when you remove military spending from the Bush budgets, he still grew the federal government at a faster rate than Clinton did. And Kerry has not said he will raise taxes exactly, he proposes to recind some of Bush’s cuts, and not the ones for the middle class. Besides, did you hear his speech last night? After saying the government needs to cut back on spending, he then went on to say he is going to dramatically increase funding for education, put a health clinic in every rural county, increase funding for community colleges, and increase job training budgets! All in the same speech! How does one pay for these things? TAXES!
I admit I do not trust Bush on national security, I think there have been too many mistakes, lack of planning, and lack of accountabilty in his adminstration. His track record in his 4 years has been an attack on our homeland, a war, increased terrorism worldwide and alienating many of our allies. I consider these failures.
Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Kerry, I simply don’t think he’d be any worse, and I don’t think Bush has earned the right to be re-elected.
Quote: “Congress needs to figure out how to spend less money on crappy social programs and pork projects, not Bush.”
Then why has Bush, not once, ever vetoed any legislation?? The president has a tool with which to do this, he should use it. At the very least, he should stop making speeches promising billions (trillions?) in new social spending, if he really is a champion of a “defense only” government.
After 4 years of Bush, I don’t understand why you still delude yourself into thinking he’s less likely to institute universal health care than anyone else.
For you fiscal conservatives: Kerry voted against the WH version of the 87B for iraq because he disagreed with the funding (just added to the deficit) he DID vote for the house version that used current funding through rescinding a small portion of the tax cuts. The WH threatened to veto this version. In other words he was just as strongly for the troops but wanted a more fiscally conservative approach. BTW congress added the body armor to the bill, the WH left it out.
Failureman, your argument involves too much subtlety. Don’t you realize, that sort of thinking is only allowed when conservative senatorial candidates go back on their word and do something they swore they’d never do?
Richard, if Kerry does 1/3 of what he’s proposing, it will cost like 7.9 trillion dollars … turning back the ‘rich’ tax cuts only gives us a projected 200-300 billion. His math doesn’t add up (there’s a reason I’ve never met someone who has a Masters in Economics who is a Democrat).
I want to get back to the Colorado situation. I haven’t kept up with the fine details but are you telling me that they will be able to decide AFTER the election how to split/not split the votes??? That just seems insane regardless of which side you want to win.
James D… how will Kerry get even 1/3 of his proposals thru a republican congress?
and how much will all of the programs Bush promised last night cost?
Not much difference between the two when it comes to spending.
Richard, I am voting for Bush. I believe in principle fiscally he is quite conservative, albeit he has not shown to be so far.
I think maybe he’s been a little distracted by the war on terror to do what he’s wanted to do domestically. I think too much change, which is what he wants, would have freaked Americans out. There was just too much to handle these last 4 years.
I do believe, if no other major catastrophe occurs and Bush is elected, he is going to push for some major reforms. His comments about new social programs would be scary if I thought he wasn’t planning to make some cuts/changes elsewhere.
Is no one else excited about tax reforms, privatized ss, medical savings accounts, welfare reform (requiring accountability), etc? How can you not be?
Bush, if elected, will be the hardest working 2nd term president in the history of the USA. I would put money on it.
Scared stiff–if Kerry is elected how do you know he will have a Reb congress? The Senate is certainly up for grabs. Bush had a paper majority, but with Reb like Chaffee and Snow that really isn’t a majority.
Richard==you dont’t trust Bush on security==Kerry was trying to cut the CIA budget. It was the Clinton admin that forbid using “unsavory people”—who else would “rat out thier freinds” ?
Kerry has said he would have gone to war with Iraq knowing what he now knows, but would have had UN backing. When the UN thought there were WMD in Iraq they wouldn’t support a war–how would they support a war if there weren’t WMD’s?
It’s really easy to find fault with decisions if you don’t have to make them. I’m still waiting for a coherent plan to deal with terrorism–other than to be sensitive.
Kerry is unlikely to be able to inspire anyone to do anything. But Bush is likely to inspire us to do evil.
Ms. Dani,
I think you’ve summed up why I’m voting for Bush.
Mr. T. – thanks for the article. I found it very interesting. I’ll ponder it for a while. Better to be defeatist – pick the coward who can’t do anything
OR
optimistic – with someone who has proven he will get results, albeit less than favorable ones
George, you’ve resorted to the arguement that annoys the hell out of me as I stated in my first post-
“But, but, but… Kerry would be worse!”
Perhaps he would, but again, I know for an absolute fact Bush is terrible (IMO). And, again, Kerry would be facing a hostile Congress.
And rather than do a Pavlovian drool to a slick one liner and Republican talking points, do a google on “sensitive war on terror Bush Cheney” Some of my favorites-
Rumsfeld, 11/4/01 ” I’m certainly aware of the views of the president of Pakistan and indeed the views of any number of countries across the globe.
It is an important question and certainly an issue that all of us are sensitive to.
The reality is that the threats of additional terrorist acts are there.
They are credible, they are real, and they offer the prospects of still thousands of more people being killed.
Our task is to certainly be sensitive to the views in the region, but also to see that we aggressively deal with the terrorist networks that exist.”
General Richard Meyers 10/31/01- “And I would just say that we are, I think, very culturally sensitive.
We go to the leaders at the political level and at the military level, and ask for their advice.
So actions we will take I think will be consistent with that advice.
But we’re not unaware and we’re not insensitive. These are important issues.”
Wolfowitz, 11/9/01- “I think we’ve made it clear we’re going to be sensitive to the fact that Ramadan is the holiest month on the Muslim calendar and we will have that in mind.”
And niether you nor Ms. Dani addressed any of my thoughts on the failure of the WOT, or the fact that he proposes more programs/spending and less government in THE SAME SPEECH! Bush politics- Say one thing, do the opposite and SPIN BABY SPIN!
I was most excited by the following in Bush’s speech:
1. Limits on malpractice lawsuits.
2. Limits on other frivolous lawsuits.
3. Major reform of the federal tax code.
4. Personal retirement accounts.
5. Allowing small businesses to band together to purchase health insurance.
All of these sound like pretty solid conversative ideas, but why do libertarians bent on Bush’s destruction only see what makes them mad?
Perhaps you missed all the lies (broken promises) spouted in his first campaign… and all subsequent posts all over the web pointing them out.
Why in the hell would you trust any politician? Do you people have some sort brain defect that makes you forget every bit of political history. Politicians have been and always will be lying, power hungry, scumbags.
Is your everpresent optimism for the newest slave-driving term of political oppression driven by sadism? Or are you blinded by hope?
Either way it’s sad.
Familiar outcome, huh?
I think that the hostage taking of children in Russia, just gave Bush a 5% point boost. People have remembered that this WOT needs the strongest man in the White House. I don’t think Kerry has shown much guts lately.
I’m almost rooting for Kerry this election even though I am a Republican with libertarian views. The reason:
A loss for the R’s this election will focus them the way the loss in ’92 did. Remember the R takeover in ’94 (contract with America)?
I get so tired of this but oh well
1)no further terrorist attacks since 9/11
2)Nuclear Walmart in Pakistan shut down
3)Afghanistan pacified and moving towards democracy(with 10 million or 90% of eligible voters registered)
4)Iraq-ditto
5)Saddam’s fat hairy ass in jail(“hey Iran, Nkorea-this could be you”)
6)Libya surrenders its WMD
7)Nkorea realizes “THIS round eye no punk” and returns to the bargaining table
8)Iran accepts intl. inspections which establish their nuclear arms program once and for all(guess who is next)
9)inherited recession-dealt with. And before any one starts whining about outsourced jobs notice the unemployment stats equals that of the mighty Bill Clinton. His 5.4 is the same as Dubya’s 5.4
It’s always easy to spot the people that aren’t impressed by these achievments. They’re the ones with absolutely no alternative plan of their own, no electable candidate that they think could do better and not the slightest concern about any of these shortcomings.
I’m so sorry that cancer hasn’t been cured or the unified field theory completely explained–we have been rather busy?
The next time someone blames Dubya for 9/11, please have the decency to put it in the front part of your post so I know to skip the rest. Thank you.
As far as six and seven yes there’s more to do on those fronts but we’re a lot farther along than it looks. The bad guys are hope hope a hopin’ that your boy Kerry gets in. Once it’s clear they’ll be facing Dubya, watch the brave warriors of Islam see the light. It’ll be just like when we got rid of Carter, the Iranians took one look at Reagan and handed the hostages over.
There will be a similar reaction as soon as the election results come in and the Democrats finish biting scratching and pulling hair like the little bitches they are.
When the towel-heads see that our President isn’t sporting a daisy zipper pull–Allah will come to them in a dream and command them to back down like the chickenshits they are.
I’m tired and cranky. Think I’ll go to bed before it starts to show.
fourth paragraph from the bottom, I meant to say,”as far as 7&8 there’s more to do on these fronts…
“no further terrorist attacks since 9/11″
Unless, of course, you consider someone sending biological warfare agents to members of our Congress and media terrorist attacks — attacks for which no one has been arrested, just like 9/11.
“if Kerry is elected how do you know he will have a Reb congress?”
Are you serious? You think the dems have even a prayer of taking back the house??
Interesting that you didn’t mention Zell Miller in your list of Senators who don’t vote with their parties. Besides, Senate dems have shown no willingness to stand up for what they claim to believe in anyway. That was an R leg and D exec works for gridlock but a D leg and R exec doesn’t; the D’s have no balls of any sort.
Scared Stiff said,
“Unless, of course, you consider someone sending biological warfare agents to members of our Congress and media terrorist attacks”
Wellll-they had it comin’!
Generally no one (not even CNN!)contradicts #1 in my first post and I believe that’s because it was never determined if the senders were international terrorists abroad or domestic nut cases.
In any case your silence about the other eight suggests you get my point. Thanks