gallup polls with nice electoral college applet

[jdl22]

According to Gallup Kerry has a slim lead in popular vote but Bush has a solid electoral vote lead.

The real point of this is that you should visit this link (http://www.gallup.com/election2004/showdown/). It's a map of the US with the usual red states and blue states. What sets it apart is that you can click on each state and change the colors to red, blue or black (undecided) and it updates the electoral vote counts to match the map. Pretty nice little applet.

[Non_Comformist]

I gave OH, PA and MN all to Kerry and Bush still wins 271 to 267. Interesting.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I gave OH, PA and MN all to Kerry and Bush still wins 271 to 267. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have given Colorado to Kerry as well.

In your scenario, compared to 2000, Kerry is picking up Ohio and Colorado for +29 Electoral College votes. Bush is picking up Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico for +22 Electoral College votes. That's a net swing of +7 for Kerry. Kerry needs a net swing of +10.

Basically, Bush can afford to lose Ohio if he picks up Wisconsin and another state, preferably Iowa.

On another not, this is the first poll I've seen in a while which has Bush in the lead in Pennsylvanial. Gallup has it at Bush 49, Kerry 46. It's really hard to see Kerry winning the election if he doesn't win both Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I gave OH, PA and MN all to Kerry and Bush still wins 271 to 267. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have given Colorado to Kerry as well.

In your scenario, compared to 2000, Kerry is picking up Ohio and Colorado for +29 Electoral College votes. Bush is picking up Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico for +22 Electoral College votes. That's a net swing of +7 for Kerry. Kerry needs a net swing of +10.

Basically, Bush can afford to lose Ohio if he picks up Wisconsin and another state, preferably Iowa.

On another not, this is the first poll I've seen in a while which has Bush in the lead in Pennsylvanial. Gallup has it at Bush 49, Kerry 46. It's really hard to see Kerry winning the election if he doesn't win both Pennsylvania and Ohio.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah I did give it to Kerry. Basically I was trying to lay out a worse possible scenerio for Bush besides a complete collapse and I it looks pretty good for him. Your exactly right about Kerry needing to win both PA and OH inorder to win. It seems to me that a lot of things have to go Kerry's way for him to win electorally.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that a lot of things have to go Kerry's way for him to win electorally.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at the close elections of 1960 (http://presidentelect.org/e1960.html) and 1976 (http://presidentelect.org/e1976.html), it gives some evidence for what has happened to the Electoral Map. The Democrats used to dominate the South. The Republicans dominated the West. The elction got decided in the Northeast and Midwest. It's as if the Democrats traded the South away in exchange for just the Pacific coast. It puts them in a bind where they have to win "too much" in the Midwest if they can't win at all in the South.

This problem started in 1968. It's no coincidence that the two Democrats who have been elected President since then were southern Governors who were able to win in the South.

[Matty]

Their state polling is very outdated- almost 2 weeks outdated. You can see the dates when you roll your mouse pointer over the individual states.

www.electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
it's as if the Democrats traded the South away in exchange for just the Pacific coast

[/ QUOTE ]

While it might be "as if" they did this, it IS due to the fact that Southern Democrats felt betrayed by their fellow Democrats who supported civil rights and desegragation.

Since most politicians in the South during the 1960's were conservative democrats, and these were the most likely to support racist policies, they naturally opposed the liberal policies of equality supported by Democrats and most all mainstream (non wacko/non Southern) Republicans. Not all racist southern policticians were Democrats, of course. Rep. George H.W. Bush (R) from Texas voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

The current Republican party was more than happy to take the votes of the racist constituancy of the Southern Democrats of the 60's.

[Lazymeatball]

They didn't get the senior senate seat of West Virginia

[anatta]

I say black guys dominiate the heavyweight division, and you respond with Rocky Marciano.

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's as if the Democrats traded the South away in exchange for just the Pacific coast

[/ QUOTE ]

While it might be "as if" they did this, it IS due to the fact that Southern Democrats felt betrayed by their fellow Democrats who supported civil rights and desegragation.

Since most politicians in the South during the 1960's were conservative democrats, and these were the most likely to support racist policies, they naturally opposed the liberal policies of equality supported by Democrats and most all mainstream (non wacko/non Southern) Republicans. Not all racist southern policticians were Democrats, of course. Rep. George H.W. Bush (R) from Texas voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

The current Republican party was more than happy to take the votes of the racist constituancy of the Southern Democrats of the 60's.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the things I love about this site is that someone who doesn't know me can determine that I am a racist simply because I am from the South and I am voting for Bush. But I always forget that it is the Conservatives that divide our country on racial issues, not the Liberals. I have voted for more Democratic Candidates for president than Republican ones. Does that mean I am only a racist part of the time?

[anatta]

I did not say all Bush supporters are racist. I explained to you the role race had in changing the political dynamics in the South. Unless you personally were voting with the Conservative Democrats in the 1960's but switched parties after that, like millions of others, because you could not stomach the race policies embraced by liberals, then I wasn't calling you a racist.

[texaspimp]

It is good to know that there were no racists in the northern states during the 60's. If it wasn't for the South, race relations in America would be like peanut butter and jelly!

[anatta]

I suppose instead of "racists", I should just substitute "supporters of racist policies" or "pro-segregation, anti-civil rights people". There were certainly more supporters of segregation and such in the South than the North. I also think the North has been historically more progressive when it comes to race relations. Abolishing Slavery was a good head start.