Posted on 06/30/2004 7:52:15 PM PDT by Dales
I think I have a greater chance of being elected President this term than that measure passing.
I hope you're right. As I understand it they haven't yet collected enough signature to put it on the ballot. If it gets on the ballot I hope the state Republican party will devote some time and effort to shooting it down.
"That Kerry has been polling as well as he has in WI, IA and MN has been surprising to me."
Not me...they are the true Axis of Marx.
I agree. But I believe that an unpopular and ultimately polarizing governor like Engler contributed to motivating the Dem base in 2000, just as it did in defeating Bush in the primaries when Dems crossed over just to spite Engler (who endorsed Bush).
I don't think there is any chance that voters will cast a ballot to dilute their state's electoral strength.
"I don't think there is any chance that voters will cast a ballot to dilute their state's electoral strength."
Thanks..you're of course correct..don't know why I had that idea in my brain.
It's not that unlikely that Kerry would take PA and lose WV. It happened last time, and I doubt Kerry is a more attractive candidate for the Mountain State.
Gore won PA by 5 and lost WV by 6. That's an 11 point difference.
Dales -- any chance this is an outlier, or perhaps the Rowland resignation resulted in a negative bounce (guilt by association) for Bush?
Its for this reason, the liberals don't want to open this can of worms.
I don't think it will pass, but we ought to be vigilant as always.
Then, they're stupid. If there was any chance of this succeeding in CO, the CA R's would get the same thing on the ballot here, and it would pass. Not the outcome they would welcome.
*I did some calling for Bush/Cheney 2004 just before I left, and in talking to some people who did a "walk through" voter registration in Democratic Montgomery Co., OH, they said it was VERY successful, and they intend to carry the county this year. I think Bush lost this county by 5000 in 2000 and still carried OH. If we take Montgomery, Kerry cannot win.
*Couldn't tell if the VERY most recent AZ poll is included here, which has Bush up by a growing margin. Bush will definitely win AZ. That should be moved to the SOLID for Bush category.
If just one of the true battleground states---PA or MI goes for Bush; if he carries NM (which he lost by 500 votes in 2000) and if he takes WI, where he is now leading, he wins with 302 EVs. Adding in just MI or a combo of OR + NJ or both PA and MI, we are at about 330 EVs, or . . . exactly where I said Bush would be almost one year ago.
You are most correct on those four points, but WV's
changing demographics makes these less potent issues
for Bush. WV has one of the highest percentages of
retired and elderly in the country. Fears about the
solvency of Social Security and Medicare just might
give Kerry the edge needed to carry the electoral votes.
'Scientific' view forecasts a big Bush winPolls may show the presidential race in a dead heat, but for a small band of academics who use scientific formulas to predict elections, President Bush is on his way to a sizable win... Most of these academics are predicting Bush, bolstered by robust economic growth, will win between 53 and 58 percent of the votes cast for him and his Democratic opponent John Kerry... But one glaring error is what the forecasters are perhaps best remembered for: They predicted in 2000 that Democrat Al Gore would win easily, pegging his total at between 53 and 60 percent of the two-party vote... The forecasters chalk up the 2000 error to Gore's campaign, which distanced itself from the Clinton record. All the models assume the candidates will run reasonably competent campaigns, said Thomas Holbrook, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee... Holbrook uses an economic indicator from the University of Michigan's survey of consumers. One question asks whether respondents are better or worse off financially than they were a year before. In May, 45 percent said they were better off. That is lower than the all-time election year high of 54 percent in 2000, Holbrook said, but higher than the 39 percent in 1996 when Clinton was re-elected.
Reuters
July 01, 2004
Doing it by popular vote would be bad, but doing it by congressional district (awarding the remaining two EVs to the overal winner) would seem reasonable. Though I think it would have to be a national change to have any effect.
BTW, even if the referendum in Colorado is to take effect "immediately", I find very dubious the notion that it could affect the result of an election that occurred before its passage. If the referrendum were one day and the presidential election the next, I could see that possibly passing the smell test, but FWIU the referrendum and the presidential election are simultaneous.
OTOH, if the referendum passes and the state goes narrowly for Kerry, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the Republicans pushing to honor the referrendum, since the Democrats would certainly do so if it favored them.
I just love your weekly updates. Please put me on your ping list. Thanks.
What a great job. One suggestion for you (to get more fame for all this work your doing, and ad revenue and stuff) get your own URL. You can keep your site where it is and ridirect to it from Network Solutions for $30 a year. That way you have a snappy thing that people can reference.
The RNC should pay you for this service.
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.