Sweet Election tracking site...

[timmynausea]

This site is updated every day following all the polls.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[GrantDawg]

That's funny because I just heard today that Florida was a strong Bush lean and Ohio a Kerry lean. This says the exact opposite. Just goes to show you can't trust what you hear. :)

[Cuckoo]

This is an interesting site, although it doesn't appear completely accurate from what I've heard either. Hawaii would be a lock for Kerry, I'd think, not just a lean, and I could be wrong, but I'd think SC is a lock for Bush.

[bronconick]

The site I usually check is www.electionprojection.com

The siteowner leans heavily republican, but seems to keep the weekly projection neutral.

[Cuckoo]

The site I usually check is www.electionprojection.com

The siteowner leans heavily republican, but seems to keep the weekly projection neutral.

Nice. I like that one better. It looks like it has a lot more detailed info.

[Swaggs]

Here is a nice one for the Senate races: http://www.kivacom.com/US_Senate_Races_2004.html

[timmynausea]

I believe the site I had linked to always uses the most recent poll regardless of who conducted the poll. You really have to check it every day to appreciate that, I guess. Florida has been back and forth this past week. Many other states have shifted a lot as well. Michigan has gone from barely Kerry to strong Kerry over the course of the week, for example.
Did you not read the info, though? The first Presidential poll in Hawaii was released today or yesterday and it is closer than people had previously expected.
Also in case anyone didn't notice you have to hold the cursor over the state for the poll info to pop-up.
I'm looking at the senate race site and it looks good. I'll check out the other election site next.

[Peregrine]

The site I usually check is www.electionprojection.com

The siteowner leans heavily republican, but seems to keep the weekly projection neutral.

Nice site, I like the presentation of the data.

[tucker342]

The site I usually check is www.electionprojection.com (http://www.electionprojection.com/)

The siteowner leans heavily republican, but seems to keep the weekly projection neutral.
I love the amount of info put on the projection page.

[tucker342]

dola-



Here is a nice one for the Senate races: http://www.kivacom.com/US_Senate_Races_2004.html
That seems like a very good site.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Here is a link to two others from a prior thread. One of them is excellent because it keeps a track of every poll for the state so you can see the differences and the trends.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/showthread.php?t=28827

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Best one I've seen...http://dailythoughts.com/ecb.htm

[Vegas Vic]

Two good sites that generally have good polling info:

www.realclearpolitics.com
www.rasmussenreports.com

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Hey, I already suggested the realclearpolitics link. :D It kicks ass. I highly recommend it.

[rufusjonz]

Record high oil prices, unpopular war, mediocre economy, high deficit -- all historical signs point to INCUMBENT LOSES BIG electoral vote.

[Butter]

Anybody remember the Orvetti Report? Read that faithfully in 2000. Then he went and became a photographer or something.

A 269-269 electoral college tie.... could that possibly be weirder than what happened in '00?

[duckman]

Record high oil prices
Thank the war on terror and OPEC for this.

unpopular war
Hmmmm. Seems that a majority of Americans still support the war. Most people's beef was the handling of the exit strategy and intel miscalculations.

mediocre economy
Mediocre? That's why the interest rates are going back up and employment is down to 5.4%. Last I check, those are indicators of a strong economy.

high deficit
History has shown that EVERY war involving this country has caused such deficits.

[QuikSand]

A 269-269 electoral college tie.... could that possibly be weirder than what happened in '00?

Weird, but the path to resolution woudl be quite simple (unlike in 2000). The House of Representatives votes, they re-elect Bush, and it's over.

[Butter]

Weird, but the path to resolution woudl be quite simple (unlike in 2000). The House of Representatives votes, they re-elect Bush, and it's over.

Ah, but it wouldn't be so simple, would it? What if the DC delegate decides to abstain again? What if some dipwad decides to jump parties? Very unlikely, but who knows.

[rufusjonz]

Thank the war on terror and OPEC for this.


Hmmmm. Seems that a majority of Americans still support the war. Most people's beef was the handling of the exit strategy and intel miscalculations.


Mediocre? That's why the interest rates are going back up and employment is down to 5.4%. Last I check, those are indicators of a strong economy.


History has shown that EVERY war involving this country has caused such deficits.

Denail is more than just a river in Egypt -- check the stock market...that's more important than bs economic facts -- me and a lot of other ppl are losing money in it right now -- i know that's not bush's fault, but...

[digamma]

Ah, but it wouldn't be so simple, would it? What if the DC delegate decides to abstain again? What if some dipwad decides to jump parties? Very unlikely, but who knows.
It is one vote per state. Bush would win comfotably.

[Cuckoo]

Denail is more than just a river in Egypt -- check the stock market...that's more important than bs economic facts -- me and a lot of other ppl are losing money in it right now -- i know that's not bush's fault, but...

Why don't you take it to another thread. This one started out as a nice discussion of electoral counts before you butted in.

[rufusjonz]

im just saying that ELECTORALLY the incumbent should lose this year, whether he was repub or demo...it won't be nearly as close as 2000 ...

[Butter]

It is one vote per state. Bush would win comfotably.

I'm talking about when the electoral college votes. Each elector gets one vote, but there are 538 of them... any 1 of which swinging to 1 side or the other would decide the election.

[duckman]

Denail is more than just a river in Egypt -- check the stock market...that's more important than bs economic facts -- me and a lot of other ppl are losing money in it right now -- i know that's not bush's fault, but...
The stock market is never a good indicator of the economy. The damn thing will drop 30 points if Greenspan sneezes on TV.

[digamma]

I'm talking about when the electoral college votes. Each elector gets one vote, but there are 538 of them... any 1 of which swinging to 1 side or the other would decide the election.
OK, my bad. Fair point, then.

[CamEdwards]

the problem with the first couple of sites mentioned in this post is that they don't have a "too close to call" option for those states where the difference in polls is closer than the margin of error.

And rufus, I'm sorry, but this election is going to be close. It won't be a runaway for Kerry, it won't be a runaway for Bush. It will come down to a handful of votes in a handful of states, and you can mark my words that both sides are already getting their lawyers ready for court challenges whenever and wherever possible.

[NoMyths]

It won't be a runaway for Kerry, it won't be a runaway for Bush. It will come down to a handful of votes in a handful of states, and you can mark my words that both sides are already getting their lawyers ready for court challenges whenever and wherever possible.Cam's right. Makes me wish I lived in a swing state.

[Vegas Vic]

Weird, but the path to resolution woudl be quite simple (unlike in 2000). The House of Representatives votes, they re-elect Bush, and it's over.

Setting up a legacy that would never be rivaled: elected by the Supreme Court in 2000, and by Congress in 2004. The icing would be if he lost the popular vote again in 2004.

[Wolfpack]

Anybody remember the Orvetti Report? Read that faithfully in 2000. Then he went and became a photographer or something.

A 269-269 electoral college tie.... could that possibly be weirder than what happened in '00?

For a time, it was actually a distinct possibility in the 2000 campaign. I think if Bush lost Florida, but picked up some other close states, it would have deadlocked at 269 (don't remember the exact math, though).

As for what would happen, yes, it officially gets tossed to the House and each state delegation votes as a single unit. If a state delegation was fatally split, they had to abstain. As I recall it had to be a majority of states to secure the win, meaning 26 states. In 2000, the Republicans had exactly 26 delegations they were the majority of. I don't know if that number has shifted or not by now.

[GrantDawg]

Setting up a legacy that would never be rivaled: elected by the Supreme Court in 2000, and by Congress in 2004. The icing would be if he lost the popular vote again in 2004.
Actually, that would be pretty cool.

[GrantDawg]

For a time, it was actually a distinct possibility in the 2000 campaign. I think if Bush lost Florida, but picked up some other close states, it would have deadlocked at 269 (don't remember the exact math, though).

As for what would happen, yes, it officially gets tossed to the House and each state delegation votes as a single unit. If a state delegation was fatally split, they had to abstain. As I recall it had to be a majority of states to secure the win, meaning 26 states. In 2000, the Republicans had exactly 26 delegations they were the majority of. I don't know if that number has shifted or not by now.
There is another possibility. An elector could switch his vote. It wouldn't even get to the House then.

[Wolfpack]

True, but I was speculating if the electors did their obligated duty and voted as they should have.

Anyone here ever read The People's Choice by Jeff Greenfield? It was an interesting story that posited what would happen if the President-elect died suddenly before the electors had a chance to cast their votes. The reason it was a calamity in the book is because the VP candidate was an utter idiot (a reference to Dan Quayle, I'm sure) that many electors didn't want to have as President.

Of course, if a few electors switched their vote and that caused a change in the outcome of the election, particularly if it went out-of-line to the popular vote, it would likely lead to the abolition of the electoral college sometime after that. It's one thing for the electors to vote as directed by the state governor and based on state voting results. It's something else when the elector decides to vote without regard to such results. However, such things are unlikely to happen except perhaps in events as described in the book I mentioned, since the slate of electors sent to DC to vote are usually party loyalists who wouldn't think to be disloyal in their voting unless the outcome was never going to be in doubt.

[Arles]

If the electoral college was ever abandoned, all campaigning would centralize around Chicago, New York, LA, Philly, Miami and other main cities. You'd have a better chance of find Osuma Bin Laden in Iowa or New Mexico over a presidential candidate.

[Ben E Lou]

The icing would be if he lost the popular vote again in 2004.Which reminds me of a question I've been meaning to re-check: When is the last time that a candidate truly "won" (>50%) the popular vote. Was it Reagan?

[Arles]

Which reminds me of a question I've been meaning to re-check: When is the last time that a candidate truly "won" (>50%) the popular vote. Was it Reagan?
Bush 41 won 54% in 1988.

[Noop]

http://a1356.g.akamai.net/f/1356/2383/4h/msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/str_relations_bush_kerry.jpg

It doesn't matter who you vote for... they are all connected to the same people.

[GrantDawg]

http://a1356.g.akamai.net/f/1356/2383/4h/msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/str_relations_bush_kerry.jpg

It doesn't matter who you vote for... they are all connected to the same people.

That is a pretty neat little find there Noop.

[rufusjonz]

wow amazing chart Noop! where is that from? I knew they were both Skull-n-bones at yale around the same time, which already showed we are choosing between 2 almost identical elites this time around, but that geneology is a trip

[duckman]

If memory serves me, I think the Bush family was from the eastern seaboard and has moved to Texas in the last 30 years.

[Noop]

wow amazing chart Noop! where is that from? I knew they were both Skull-n-bones at yale around the same time, which already showed we are choosing between 2 almost identical elites this time around, but that geneology is a trip
I found on another messageboard.... I thought it was interesting

[rufusjonz]

i found it on msn ancestry
http://msn.ancestry.com/landing/strange/bush4/tree.htm?rc=locale%7E&us=0

[ScottVib]

If memory serves me, I think the Bush family was from the eastern seaboard and has moved to Texas in the last 30 years.
That's correct. Bush's grandfather was a long time senator from Connecticut. Which is where he was born (New Haven, CT). His father was born in Mass, but lived much of his young life in Greenwich CT. The family vacation home is of course still in Kennebunkport Maine.

Edit - FWIW the President is the first President to have been born in CT.

[duckman]

That's correct. Bush's grandfather was a long time senator from Connecticut. Which is where he was born (New Haven, CT). His father was born in Mass, but lived much of his young life in Greenwich CT. The family vacation home is of course still in Kennebunkport Maine.

Edit - FWIW the President is the first President to have been born in CT.
I wanted to say Connecticut, but I wasn't so sure. Funny now that the Bush family is spread over the four corners of the Earth. :)

[clintl]

Nixon, Ford, the Bushes, FDR, and Winston Churchill are all related to each other, too.

http://www.mayflowerhistory.com/Genealogy/famousdescendants.php

[JPhillips]

Well of course they're related. Afterall, they're both a part of the Reptilian Conspiracy!

Reptilian Conspiracy (http://www.reptilianagenda.com/index.html)

[Noop]

Well of course they're related. Afterall, they're both a part of the Reptilian Conspiracy!

Reptilian Conspiracy (http://www.reptilianagenda.com/index.html)I am afraid.... this is very strange..

[larrymcg421]

If the electoral college was ever abandoned, all campaigning would centralize around Chicago, New York, LA, Philly, Miami and other main cities. You'd have a better chance of find Osuma Bin Laden in Iowa or New Mexico over a presidential candidate.
This is a theory I always hear, and it makes no sense. The way the system is set up right now, it is a waste of time for either party to go to states like Massachusetts, Vermont, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii. These states are locks. As the election nears, more and more states will be locks and thus will be avoided by the candidates.

Also, the electoral college doesn't truly represent voters in a given state. How does it make sense that a candidate gets the same credit if he wins 99%-1% or 50.1%-49.9%? The vote of a Democrat in Utah or a Republican in Massachusetts is meaningless right now.

[Vegas Vic]

This is a theory I always hear, and it makes no sense. The way the system is set up right now, it is a waste of time for either party to go to states like Massachusetts, Vermont, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii. These states are locks. As the election nears, more and more states will be locks and thus will be avoided by the candidates.

Also, the electoral college doesn't truly represent voters in a given state. How does it make sense that a candidate gets the same credit if he wins 99%-1% or 50.1%-49.9%? The vote of a Democrat in Utah or a Republican in Massachusetts is meaningless right now.

You would see Bush spending time in New York and Kerry spending time in Texas. They wouldn't be writing off any states, as they would be trying to squeeze out every possible vote.

It's kind of funny that we're trying to spread democracy to Iraq, when in fact we're not even a democracy ourselves -- we're a republic.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

But in a pure popular vote contest, TV ads and such would even become more omnipresent as why to go to a small state such as New Hampshire that's close when it's just a few thousand votes either way. Instead, go to Boston or New York and try to draw a few more thousand from there, plus get more pub.

A more fair way to do things would be a mix of the current system, but basing it on Congressional districts instead of states. For example, Pennsylvania has 25 (I think) districts. If Kerry would win 14 and Bush would win 11, there ya' go. Also, there would be a small (based on the state size) bonus for winning the popular vote in a state.

[larrymcg421]

But in a pure popular vote contest, TV ads and such would even become more omnipresent as why to go to a small state such as New Hampshire that's close when it's just a few thousand votes either way. Instead, go to Boston or New York and try to draw a few more thousand from there, plus get more pub.

A more fair way to do things would be a mix of the current system, but basing it on Congressional districts instead of states. For example, Pennsylvania has 25 (I think) districts. If Kerry would win 14 and Bush would win 11, there ya' go. Also, there would be a small (based on the state size) bonus for winning the popular vote in a state.
You know how bad gerrymandering is now? It would be insane under that system.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I never said it was perfect. But, there's got to be a better way than how things currently are.

[Wolfpack]

I think if you opt for that system, it has to be based on vote percentages for the state, no bonuses for winning the state. If you want to reward the winner, round up the percentage to the next number. For example, if a state has 10 EVs and a candidate wins 54% of the vote, he gets 6 of those votes.

Another side-effect of this is the fact that someone like Nader might (I say, might) score an EV here or there, especially in the more populous states like California, which could really make things chaotic if it's close.