Bush wins 272 to 266 if you don't read this and stop it.

Do the electoral Math.

Bush plans on winning all the states he won in 2000 with the exception of Florida but picking up Pennslyvania. The states that Gore won in 2000 will equal 260 electoral votes in 2004. If you add Florida to the mix that gives the Democrats 287 electoral votes. Now take away PA. That gives us 266 votes. Bush gets 272. How is Bush going to win PA. Easy here is how:

Philadelphia in 2000 voted 80.04% to 17.99% for Gore or

449,182 to 100,959. If the Republicans can gain control of the city it can change the vote to 350,000 to 200,000 and that number would be ignored. But it would change the popular vote enough in the state to hand it to Bush.

Is this making sense now? Do you comprehend why Bush had the office of the Mayor Street's office bugged?

Lose that city and Bush wins in 2004. It is that simple. One city can change the entire outcome.

Mike

NT

Clark if nominee will take Arkansas and possible Tennesse and West Virginia. We would eke out aa victory.

Let's say we hold on to Penn. In 2000, obviously we all know Gore was elected, but for the sake of argument, had Gore carried West Virginia or even Arkansas or even Vermont or NH (one of those two was in play can't remember which one, but basically same electoral count) then Gore wins without Florida.

Gore's numbers would be 260, not work. First, you will not hang on to PA. It is gone. NH only has 4 electoral votes and is controlled by the Republicans. A win in Arkansas is only 6 votes. 266 is not the 270 we need. We need Florida. You also forget that Oregon may be lost, that is 7 votes. Without Florida we would lose.

Mike

Although I would admit that winning Florida would be both a major moral and strategic victory.

You think that the Military families and the hispanics are going to vote for Bush? I don't think so. What changed in Florida between 2000 and 2004 that would swing the state to Bush?

Mike

Diebold, the graveyard that the Democrats are whisling past. Acording to one poster, even Dean things this is just conspricy. But if Bev is correct in her observations in CA, teh vote their may have been rigged too. And their would be no way to chalange it in court.

If the Dems don't get off their ass real soon and deal with this, they woun't pick up any states.

The Demagrafics in FL says that the state is ALREADY democratic. The same thing can be said of Taxas. But so long as the elections their remained rigged, they will contiue to be in the Repugs collom.

If The People were so ticked at W, they wouldn't have put his jackass brother back in power by a large margin.

Of course, there's the possibility that they did vote for the other guy, and the new & improved fraud machine adjusted the totals. And there were those touchscreen machines that recorded all governor votes as votes for Jeb.

Florida is as good as gone. Dems need to pick up some other states, perhaps Arizona and Arkansas, to compensate.

The problem is the fact that the Dems will not fight. We arn't even talking about the difrence between Libiral/Center/Right here, but the fact that the Dems contiue to think they can win by riding in on Bush's coat tails.

This was why the Dems lost in 02. Bush kept hitting them between the eyes with Iraq while the Dems kept trying to change the subject. This made them come off as stupid.

Mean while, the anti-war sentiment was at its hight, and for thoes of us who were inclined to vote Dem, pulling our hair out trying to tell the Dems that their were no WMD, they came off as stupid AND disconected.

The thing is that even in the "solid red" states, the Repugs power is not all that secure. Districts have been Garrymandered to their limutes in some districts, and the population incresingly become less and less reliable for the Repugs.

I am convinced that there is a land slide out there for the Dems. But not for a Repug light. And not for a Democrat who thinks he can win by playing the demografics play book.

And if this state is givin to the repugnant-cons i will personally march into diebold's HQ with some bamboo slivers and presuade them to confess

"Bush" won handily in 2002. Despite national Democratic attention... despite lots of press on how we thought 2002 would be the "backlash" from the 2000 debacle... despite heavy minority inclination to vote...

The diference is that BroBush was the incumbent. That always counts for something. So, yes, shrub could easily win Florida in 2004 (though I'm not claiming even that it is "leaning" that way at this time).

I also disagee that we have to win Florida to win. We have to win California & New York. But plenty of scenarios could have us win without Florida.

As I recall, many of the Congressional victories were by very slim margins. Not to mention poll/outcome anomalies such as the Chambliss 'win' in GA.

America is still split right down the middle. This thing ain't over yet.

It was brother Bush I was talking about winning in 2002. Specifically in Florida.

He won by better than 650,000 votes in a state that split 50/50 just two years before. 56/43 is a pretty "handy" victory.

There Is No Friggin' Way Oregon Is Goin' Republican In 2004 - No Frickin' Way - The Protests In Portland Were/Are Huge - There's Alot Of Pissed People Up Here (But You Might Be Right, I Guess They Have TO FUCKING VOTE!!)

Sorry, Angry, But Rest Assured We Got My Vote -

What can Bush tell Oregonians about what he's done for the state? Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The bumper-sticker "I pay more taxes than PGE & Enron" says it all.

My state did not vote Gore for a specific reason.....mining. Gore made some comments that totally scared the crap out of alot of people who thought they would have no job unless Bush won. Ideals tend to go out the window when people think they won't be able to provide for their family. Bush has also traveled to PA something like 16 times since the election.

challenge throughout the South, and prevent the Republicans from concentrating their resources on a few states. Ahem....

But now we have to spend some time in that state also. Not to mention we lost about $50 million on the state in funds that would have been spent there. Arnold will be campaigning against us, city by city, county by country. We have to pay that off to keep the state and surrender the other states we have less of a chance in.

Mike

His presence as governor is NOT assured for the next 4 years.

They are faced with two problems. One, where are they going to get the money to drive the recall? And two, who are they going to run Against Arnold?

California blows a hole in the centrist position. While it can be argued that Florida will only go for a moderate. CA is supose to be the most Librial state in the union. So why did they run on a Centrist campain? Why are they saying that Aronold won on a centrist campain? Unless one is to beleive CA is moving to the right.

But even if Arnold IS removed shortly. The damage will have been done.

First, funding petitioners is not going to be a problem, like it was for Issa. There is a liberal base in California that'll be happy to sign that paper and take a copy to their friends. IF (and this is a big IF) the going gets tough, there are people like Flynt and Streisand who might kick in a few bucks to pay gatherers.

Second, and I'm surprised you'd say this, you don't have to run anyone against Ahnold. Ahnold has to run against his record and get 50% of the vote.

Naturally, having a more desirable candidate on the second section helps. Bustamonte won't be that guy, but I betcha there's someone out there who is.

I regard Ahnold's election as more of a fluke driven by ignorance than any profound statement of shifting electorate. Once his incompetence is revealed, and I do foresee the legislative Dems giving him enough rope to hang himself, it will only be a matter of time before he goes down in flames.

And then there's the possibility that those charges of sexual assault aren't just so much hot air. If they proceed in court with civil suits, he could well be impeached by the legislature. There are lots of potential pitfalls in what's already a minefield.

And we will again, we are smarter about the antics of that election and they WILL not happen again. I think bush knows that, and why he is going for CA.

Bush "won" with only 271 electoral votes even with Florida handed to him by the Supreme Court. To get by without Florida, all we have to do is keep Gore states and add a small state like New Hampshire (4) or Nevada (4).

Why so pessimistic? CA is not going anywhere. PA wasn't helped by the steel tariffs, and Bush may lose Ohio this time and Michigan (again) as a result.

Also look at the approval ratings and, well, Bush himself...

the vote stealing was insane. If you only take away the votes added by the 13 Republican counties that did a hand count during the automatic recount then Gore wins Florida. Do a handcount of the whole state and Gore wins by a significant margin. Put back the 70,000 black votes and give 90% of them to Gore and it gets even bigger.

Florida wouldn't even be considered a swing state if not for the massive fraud.

I wish Street wasn't such a nut. I don't think we will win. I hope we do! BTW, great analysis and number crunching! :bounce::bounce:
:toast:

Poor grammer alert. "Street wasn't such a nut," is actually "Street weren't such a nut."

will be knocking on your door.

didn't follow the posts

but are you sure the investigation of Street is politically motivated?

If Street is out, would a Republican win, or would it go to another Dem?

The man that is running against him is Katz. He is a Republican and is in a dead heat with Street. Any information on Street would tip the election to Katz. Do you understand how this looks bad?

Mike

I don't buy the excuse that the aide was the only target. The bugs didn't need to be in Street's office. I think Ashcroft ordered it and any info. on Street would have gone to Katz. The Repukes are angry that they lost PA and are up to their usual dirty tricks.

I have a feeling that the plot might actually tip the election to Street. But Philly probably hasn't gone more conservative if Katz gets in.

I really don't know a thing about that case, but here in Chicago, there is a federal investigation that has gotten close to the Dem mayor which is very welcome and is not politically motivated.

I guess it depends on how much faith you have in your U.S. Attorney, is he/she a GOP hack or a professional?

You state is one of the largest states. Didn't you notice they are trying to take all the large states?

Mike

pretty much the entire state govt has gone from the GOP to the dems since 2000.

Anyway, if they bring Daley down, which isn't likely, Chicago is not going to go Republican, it's going to go to another dem.

Again, I don't know the situation in Philly, it might be very different.

Please give me some links!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031008/ap_on_re_us/chicago_corruption_1

But the Tribune first reported on it at least a year ago, so there are tons of other stories about the Duff family and Windy City Maintenance.

Let's say the pukes get away with the dirty tricks (as usual so far this century) and Street is gone, Katz is in.

How does that automatically translate into awol votes in 04? How does a repuke sitting in the mayor's office change a city that went 80% Gore in 2000 so drastically that it would go for dumbya in 04?

Are you talking about vote rigging and that type of thing, or are you saying that the mere fact that a repuke slimed his way into the office would make people vote for the smirking moron?

Do you think that the Mayor of city can sway 14% of the people in their city to vote a certain way?

I think when you smear the standard bearer of the party and render them leaderless you can get more votes.

Why do you think that Philly was where the GOP had their convention in 2000? They are after that city. They know that if they can get just 34% of the vote in that city they win the state. That is their goal. Get a mayor in, pump money into the city, provide jobs, and you will win more votes. 20% to 34% isn't much, but they lost the state by a smaller margin.

They don't have to rig the votes, but they could. They can just pour on the money and resources into the cities. If they do it under a Democrat, he/she would get the credit.

Lack of organization of the party alone would generate 5% increase. Smear the Mayor, another 5%. Organize the Republicans under the Mayor, there is another 5% of the vote. They meet their goal of 35%. They win the state.

Mike

It surely wouldn't hurt the moron if the repukes held the mayor's office, and I can see how a new mayor who gets credit for fixing some existing probs could translate into a few more votes for shrub in 04, much the same way fed dollars raining down on CA next month would help arnold and maybe buy some votes for shrub there as well. Its certainly a factor. I hope that you are wrong about the extent of what it would mean in votes for awol in 04. Hopefully, the growing discontent with bush will far outweigh any boost he might expect from a local ally.

I still believe that if we have a fair election next year, and the votes are counted accurately, the Dems will win in a landslide.

It will take some work, but if they don't get to throw out 70,000 to 100,000 votes next time due to punch cards, we have a chance.

Also the 50,000 voters scrubbed last time have all been restored thanks to the NAACP suit.

A MODERATE Democratic candidate could pull it off. No chance for a Liberal here. As much as I wish it were otherwise....

A Democratic candidate has to get something close to parity in the panhandle. A mild liberal could take southern FL and even the SW coast but would lose cenral FL and get blown out in the panhandle.

I think it's pretty naive to just assume that all the Gore states will again go Democratic. Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon and a few other states went for Gore by only the smallest of margins.

OK. Let's look at the states that Gore won by the smallest of Margins.

Iowa, Minnisota, Oregon, New Mexico, and Florida.

How is the economy in Iowa for starters? Oh, they only lost a record number of jobs. So unless they were born yesterday, I don't think they will be voting for Bush.

Minnisota. Humm, a recent poll showed Bush's approval ratings lowest in that state than any other state.

Oregon, yes you are right, we could lose it. New Mexico now has Bill Richardson as Governor. Florida, the Hispanic vote has increased. Military families are also mad at Bush.

The other states Gore won votes by a huge margin.

Mike

But unfortunately history says you're probably wrong. Just look at what happened in 1984. In 1983, the economy was in the toilet and over 200 U.S. Marines had just been blown up by terrorists in Lebanon. Ronald Reagan's presidency was starting to look like a disaster, and Democrats were confident that they would defeat him in the upcoming election.

A year later Reagan won the largest landslide in American history, taking 49 of the 50 states and an astounding 59 percent of the popular vote.

I'm not saying that Bush will win a landslide (if he does I'll probably move to Canada), but history shows us that it's almost impossible to predict what will happen a year before a presidential election.

Trigonometry books are founts of excitement compared to Walter Mondale.

We need an exciting candidate. Preferably a moderate. And we have to take the war out of the equation.

I know we antiwar types want to make 2004 a referendum on Bush's handling of the war, but if we don't get the war out of the picture, the next thing you know they'll run Chimpy strutting across the deck of the Lincoln in his custom tailored flight suit every chance they get, they'll run the footage of the Saddam statue toppling every chance they get, and the sheeple will think Bush is a great military leader, and not Quagmire Man, the AWOL fratboy that he really is.

Quick prediction: the next thing to fall in the guise of "freedom of speech" will be Equal Time provisions. The ones that say the broadcasters have to sell ads to all candidates at equal rates. Those laws seem to have disappeared in the CA recall, at least on the news shows, but if it passes with regards to advertising, I expect a severe lack of time for Democrats to run campaign commercials while Bush gets all he wants.

Of course, I'm a bit biased as I live here.

Oregon has suffered horribly under Bush's misadministration. We consistently have the worst unemployment rate in the country. Any candidate other than * that comes in here and promises that there are good times ahead is going to win the state.

You are correct, which is why I expect Wisconsin, NM, and Iowa to go for Bush, and maybe more states.

This is not a very productive analysis. A criminal investigation into the mayor of that city won't somehow translate into Philly going for Republicans, or even move the margin you mentioned in favor of the republicans significantly. One does not follow the other. Even if arrested and convicted in the next 13 months (fantasyland), the city does not fall into Republican hands, so I don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

For now, 2004 doesn't look good. My scorecard has Bush at this point winning everything he did in 2000, and at least two of the following four states: Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (notwithstanding this recent development).

Those four states represent a swing of only 43 EVs in 2004 because of population changes. Of the other states that Gore won, I would say they are relatively safe wins for the Dems.

The problem is all of the Bush 30 states are relatively safe wins for Bush in 2004.

As for Bush, unless the perception is that things get really bad on the homefront (and I honestly don't think they will), of the states he won in 2000, the one I think he has a chance of losing is Florida, which was very close in 2000, but he has to be the favorite to win as an incumbent in a state that went very well for Republicans in 2002.

Anyway, if Bush just wins every state he won in 2000, he will have 278 electoral votes in 2004. Of those states, I think he is very likely to win all of them, exept maybe Florida which is in play in the broadest sense (tho still heavily leaning Republican - anyone expecting to win Florida for dems in 2004 has high hopes indeed).

If the Dems win every state they won in 2000, they only get 260 electoral votes, not the 267 they enjoyed in 2000. It will be difficult for the dem candiate to be able to win all 4 of the dem 2000 states I mentioned above, but even if they do, it still isn't enough, without Florida - in fact, in the Electoral Vote tally, they would have lost ground!

My early prediction - Bush wins everything he did in 2000, plus Iowa, New Mexico and Wisconsin. We'll put Penn in the dem column for argument's sake, but I really think Penn will go for Bush (but not for anything involving the Pennsylvania mayor scandal). That's an electoral vote tally of:

Bush/Cheney - 300 EVs
Dem/Dem2 - 238 EVs

If Penn goes the Republicans way, and I think it will, for reasons that have nothing to do with the current criminal investigation of the mayor of Philly, but I am not as sure as I am for Iowa, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, it will be 321-217 win for Bush. In that case, even if Florida goes Dem, he still wins.

I think it's easier for Bush to hang on to his 2000 states than it is for the dem nominee to hang onto all of Gore's 2000 states - while the dem will clearly win most, its unlikely he or she will win them all, and frankly that's exactly what they need to do, and more.

This doesn't factor in a feeling I have that Bush & co will be changing the running mate in 2004. My bet is it will be a high profile NY Republican, like Rudy or Gen Powell, or a choice with racial crossover appeal (Gen Powell or Dr Rice). Just a feeling - one thing I am sure of is Cheney will not be the VP candidate in 2004.

This development would tip the balance further into advantage for Bush/Rove.

It won't be a landslide, but I think ultimately, Bush/Cheney will win at least 300-320 or so electoral votes, but unless something dramatic happens on the ticket, not many more.

Arizona is no longer a safe republican state.

New Mexico will not go for bush, now less so than ever.

Depending on the nominee, Arkansas could be in play.

Your analysis appears to be one of the more pessimistic at this time, given the bush approval freefall. However, if you have inside info about happenings of the next year, more power to ya. Guess we'll just wait and see what happens.

I don't see a dem winning AZ or NM, sorry.

Arkansas is in play if Clark wins the nomination - otherwise, I doubt it. The candidate has the home state advantage, but I'll wager that the nominee comes from a dem column state anyway (of the nominees, most of the nominees come from Gore 2000 states anyway, and those most likely to win are all from Gore 2000 states). This is no biggie to me.

It's all speculation - I am trying to be realistic, nothing more. I have no inside info.

A lot can change of course, and a severe downturn in the economy turns Bush's 320 into 180 or less, no doubt.

But can't see that happening. Then again, I'm wrong a whole lot - such is life! Keep the faith! ;-)

NM has gone Democratic in the last 3 presidential elections, IIRC. Sure it was close last time, but I think the margins are going to open up with a popular centrist Democratic governor. I see no reason it will not go Democratic in 2004 as well.

AZ also has a Democratic governor now, after electing republicans for quite a while. Its population has been growing, and it's growing increasingly liberal hispanic. Also, AFAIK, AZ hasn't been the victim of rightwing vote-thieving scams up to now. It's gone from a republican sure-thing to a swing state, IMHO.

Be that as it may, Democrats still need a state or two like Arkansas or Tennessee or Louisiana to swing their way, if they plan to unseat bush*.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

Gore won New Mexico by under 500 votes. Bush won Arizona in 2000 with no problem. If anything, he will be seen stronger by those two states in 2004 than he was in 2000.

Governors aside, people vote local politics for local issues, and national politics for national issues. That's why Arnold won't deliver Cali for Bush.

I'll bet you an In & Out Burger that the dem candidate carries neither of those two states you mention, sorry.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Ahnold won't deliver Cali for bush because they are completely different breeds of politician, admiration for hitler aside. Plus, the recall could be viewed as expression of anti-incumbent sentiment, rather than anti-Democratic. That said, if the Democrats don't make a big deal of bush's strong ties to the theives at Enron, they're giving him a bye on an issue that could singlehandedly win the state for Democrats.

Why do you think AZ and NM voters will view bush as strong, let alone desirable, in 2004?

Yes, indeed, you could be wrong. I think you're wrong. And I'm willing to bet more than an I/O burger on it. If bush wins those two states as part of his 2004 landslide, I'll buy you a pint of Portland microbrew at a local pub of your choice. 'Course, you'll have to catch up with me before I move to New Zealand or Hungary...

Where do I go to collect the I/O burger?

One "red" state we should be optimistic about winning is Nevada. People there are enraged that Bush broke his promise and sent all that nuclear waste over there. Unfotunately, Nevada only has 5 electoral votes.

...and have since December, 2001. I left NYC to start my business out here and all has been great!

This is Bushcountry, pretty solidly Republican. Don't expect any protracted grudge regarding the nuke waste.

Sorry, that sentiment just isn't there.

Is it Clark County, Washoe, or someplace else?

Mike

and Clark could could lose Ark

...Republicans lost it all in 1992, remember?

Some retooling, some good PR, some underhanded tactics, and 2 years later they controlled Congress for the first time in over 40 years.

Anything can happen and usually does in politics! Keep the faith, and don't ever be sad!

"A criminal investigation into the mayor of that city won't somehow translate into Philly going for Republicans,"

You are wrong. You did not read. First off, Ashcroft has already said he is NOT being investagated. So there is some other reason for the bug.

Second, it would turn to the hands of the Republicans because he is up for re-election in a few weeks (not next year) against a Republican and is neck and neck in the polls.

Third, any competant mayor can get his party 35% of the vote to turn the state. A popular man like Katz can do at least that good.

As for your states and predictions, you are incorrect in terms of where those states stand now. Wisconsin lost about 500,000 jobs. Bush's ratings in that state are starting to look like Gray Davis's.

Iowa, maybe, but if Clark wins the nomination that balances it out. Further, it is likely that Clark may even carry other other states.

New Mexico, that is nicely in the hands of the Democrats now. Bill Richardson has a 65% approval rating and the state is 42% Hispanic. Enven the 80's Hispanics were voting 65% in favor of the most liberal candidate.

Florida, well, we won the state last time. Also, if Clark is nominated he will attrach votes in the 1st and 2nd congressional districts which are southern. He will also swing votes in the 18th congressional district that is heavily military.

Now let's through in the curve ball, or a few. Clark is also of Jewish decent, raised Baptist, and became Catholic when he married Gert. This are the leading religions in Florida. Let us also consider that the Hispanic population has grow about 2-3% every year since 2000.

Now consider a Clark/Richardson ticket and see how that plays into your electoral math. You will find it heavily in favor of the Democrats. For Gephardt and Dean, I agree with your view that we will lose all four of those state and many more.

Mike

The bug is no big deal in terms of Penn going for the Rs in 2004, which I think may happen, but not very strongly. Even if a Republican becomes mayor, that doesn't translate into Penn going for the Rs, outside of a dynamic that is already in place. In other words, I think Penn has a 50-50 shot of going to the Rs in 2004, regardless of who is mayor in Philly (a peripheral issue in 2004).

That's all I meant, and I still think so.

I didn't predict all four states I mentioned would go for Bush, just that at least two will (and in fact I think three will), and it is unlikely a dem will take all 4, which he or she would need to do.

I do think Bush will win Wisconsin and Iowa, as well as NM (all states he narrowly lost and the truth is, if the economy stays the same or just gets a little better, it won't be a deciding issue in 2004), Clark on the ticket or not.

If the economy is much worse, this is all out the window and he will lose 35 states, and not win 35 states.

A popular Democratic or Republican governor doesn't mean nearly as much as you think - NYers like Pataki by wide margins, but it didn't come close to coming through for Bush. In a year I'm sure Arnold will be popular in California, but Cali is a pipe dream for Bush.

Clark didn't look like a winner tonight at all - the shine is off his star in a hurry. I think Leiberman and Dean are the best candidates in that field, but we can agree or disagree on that.

And regardless of what you may think, Florida won't be in the dem column in 2004, sorry. Jeb won BIG in 2002, as did Katherine Harris and Republicans statewide.

The Clark/Richardson match isn't that formidable, sorry. Clark has baggage that is already becoming evident, and looks bewildered and out of place in that field.

This is all conjecture and opinion, but I can't see Clark/Richardson impacting my analysis much more except maybe winning NM. Don't back that horse.

I dont care for Gephart much either.

I also expect Rudy to join the ticket in 2004 (this was teased in a NY Daily News article today), in which case, this is all out the window. Bush/Rudy roll easily to 400 EVs, and I don't care who the dem candidate is (unless the economy is notably worse and 5 a day are still dying in Iraq - slim chance on either, and almost no chance on both).

He's been getting on my nerves for days!!

You seem to be assuming that Bush can win all of the states he won in 2000. That's like assuming a Democratic nominee in '04 has the 19 Gore states already locked up.

I don't think Bush can afford to lose Florida, unless he intends to lose like he did last time. In other words, he loses, but he gets all of the state's electoral votes anyway.

blow you off, 'cause they're...uh....reeeeeealy smart kids.

A loss in Ohio, for example, would really give the GOP problems. They won that state narrowly in 2000.

as well as maybe Nevada. WV is a possible, but not likely. NH I think only Dean could swing that one, and maybe Kerry.

Mike

The only state that's truly locked up for Bush is Texas. All others are in play.

Everyone "knows" Idaho is a conservative stronghold, but what of it? They have four industries there--tourism, forestry, mining and agriculture. All are down thanks to Bush. All he has left is guns, but a commercial showing a line of men pawning their guns to buy food because the Bush economy has sidelined them will be exceptionally effective.

I don't think a military state is a lock for Bush either; with all of the deployments especially of reservists, Bush will have a time in a state with a big military presence. North Carolina will probably go Republican, mainly because of tobacco, but it's a tossup.

Which means we have 49 states, maybe 48, to contest hard.

before they give up their guns

A lot of gun owners have enough sense at least to realize "if I sell one of my guns, I can feed my family until my unemployment checks kick in." As much as we want to portray them this way, they're not all stupid.

People vote their selfish interests. Even us. If we can prove to them that Bush is no friend of theirs, Bush has a problem. Admittedly, turning an oil tanker takes less effort than turning a lifelong Republican, but it's possible to do both.

The talking heads always act like there is some connection between mayors and governors and some magic connection there is between their party and the party of the candidate for the executive election.

It doesn't bear out in real life.

There will be another terrorist attack just before the election . . and all those "morans in the middle" will vote for the gunslinger who attacks the terra'ists even if he has to stomp his way through the UN and those wussy dem politicians on his way to Pax Americana.

Invest in American flags.

It went right over everyone's head.

So that there's no possiblity of Diebold machines stealing the votes.

In an election where there's a 5 point margin of error- our candidate HAS to poll consistently above 55%.

That is why they should change the election laws. A president should win with the most votes and that's that. No electoral votes. Whomever wins the popular vote (i.e. AL GORE) is the winner. That way the candidates can campaign in all 50 states and not just the ones that they feel are more important (the ones with the most electoral votes).

Small population states are worried that they will have no say in national poltics if we go to a pure majority system. They are also concerned that nobody would ever come to them to try and win their vote - why spend ANY time in Montana when a state a small fraction of that size can get you ten times as many votes?

The system was designed to overweight the influence of the small states, and you may rightly feel that this in undemocratic... BUT (and it's a BIG "but"). The only way to change it is to ammend the Constitution... and the only way to do that is to get 2/3 of the States to sign off on it... and the only way to do that? (see where I'm going here?) is to get LOTS of small states to vote against their own interest (and cut their representation in half or worse). California's vote on the issue would count no more than Nevada.

The chances are about zero.

I've often complained about the Electoral College and the need to reform it, but let's face facts: It is not going to be changed any time soon. We're stuck with it (at least for the time being). It would take a real nightmare of an election to change that. For example, if a candidate won the WH with only 25% of the vote (entirely possible with the EC, but highly unlikely).

So, any Democratic candidate (and any supporter of that candidate), has to consider electoral votes. As we learned the hard way in 2000, even if we have enough votes to win the pop. vote, it doesn't necessarily mean we've got the Electoral College locked. The fact that we came so bitterly close to winning the EC in '00 only makes us all the more aware of the need to win it in '04.

The need for a candidate who can not only win a majority in the popular vote, but also 270 votes or more in the EC, is absolute.

if we use the popular vote, than a majority of the country would not have to vote at all. Between NY, LA, Chicago, and other huge cities, the rest of us, like us in WV would never have a chance. The electorate situation is suppose to provide for a more even "weighing of the votes. It would be a potential minority rule, even if it was a majority of the population. Am I making sense here???

It is a possibility. I loved how they said John Ashcroft had nothing to do with the wire, such bullshit.

we have a very popular new democratic governor and Democrats will still take Mayor of Philadelphia, especially after this bug thing. The FBI admits they did it and we all know who put them up to it. We also have a very strong teachers union here that defeated Bush last time. Don't count us out.

PENN was one of the hardest hit with unemployment. PENN will be DEM for sure.

FLORIDA? Its coast was drilled 6 months after Bush promised not to. FLORIDA will be DEM for sure.

ARKANSAS? Clark will rally enough dem support there, even if he isn't on the ticket.


DEMs have this election in the bag.