It’s gonna be very close, it may even be initially very confusing, but it will be four more years of “W” I think.
But it’s gonna be close…
I say Kerry takes the popular vote without any potential dispute, just barely slides by on the electoral, which will lead to dispute, and all the people of the world but the “W” voters in the US will let out a GIGANTIC sigh of relief.
Dubya. He’s going to peel away Wisconsin, New Mexico, Minnesota and my own state of Hawaii. Indeed, it will be NO KA OI!!!
Given that Shrub will probably keep all of the “red” states that he took in 2000 (though Ohio will be extremely close), the election is over right there.
An alternate scenario: Shrub will hold Ohio and Florida, though Ohio will take a month to be decided due to the court challenges that will ensue if Bush and Kerry divide up the states as Bush and Gore did in 2000. In this case, we won’t know until late November if Bush or Kerry is the President.
If it’s an Electoral College tie, Bush wins because the Ree-Pubs will retain control of both the House and Senate, and they’ll vote Bush in in a simple majority in the House due to the edge Reeps have in congressional delegations. The Veep gets to cast the vote in the event of a tie in the Senate. Guess who the Veep is?
After that, the permutations get too wild to explain in a short amount of time.
Chet Huntley Kahuna
We’re a representative democracy, not a direct or a parliamentary democracy. It’s served us well for 200 years, and it helps keep California and New York from being the sole arbiters of just whom will be President for the next 4 years.
That’s good enough for me.
K
Anyway…
It is so close. Either way wouldn’t surprise me. But I’m thinking Bush will barely, barely, barely take it.
Although I very clearly see a set of circumstances where Kerry wins. Too close to call with any accuracy. More a hunch than anything else.
You just made the case for why it is a good system. If we had direct democratic elections, no one in North Dakota or Wyoming would even need bother voting. The smaller states would lose all influence in national politics. Oh, by the way, in the US states have “rights,” too. It’s in the Constitution.
Kerry by a solid electoral margin (300+) and by 3-4% popular vote.
Some Reasons:
-
Zogby says Kerry will win
-
Gore pulled a lot more of the pop vote than polls said he would and was in a lot worse shape going into the election than Kerry is
-
Big turnout expected and many young voters expected
-
Anger beats fear to the polls
-
Redskins lost!
-
Bosox won!
-
Not as many will throw away a vote on a 3rd party in this election
Kerry by a solid electoral margin (300+) and by 3-4% popular vote.
Some Reasons:
-
Zogby says Kerry will win
-
Gore pulled a lot more of the pop vote than polls said he would and was in a lot worse shape going into the election than Kerry is
-
Big turnout expected and many young voters expected
-
Anger beats fear to the polls
-
Redskins lost!
-
Bosox won!
-
Not as many will throw away a vote on a 3rd party in this election
Zogby: He got it wrong in the 2002 elections. While he was closest in the 2000 election, he hasn’t been right since on any election of any significance. He’s also bucking almost all the other polls, and he’s said today that Bush has everything in place to hold it together on Tuesday.
Gore: That’s the fallacy that the DNC has managed to propagate to their faithful. EVERY election has huge numbers of ballots that aren’t counted for various reasons. In fact, 2000 was probably LESS messed up than other presidential elections in the past, and especially in Florida. Gore also showed a big 5 point shift from the 6 days before the election right up to election day. Kerry has not shown that in any poll in which the internals of that poll have been published.
Big turnout: Well, that’s the great thing about expectations. Just like in IM racing, expectations always bump up against reality. Especially in this instance, where at least 20% of Kerry voters expect Bush to prevail anyway. Now, what’s the incentive for a Kerry voter to wait 2 hours or more in a line, assuming he or she goes to that line in the first place, to cast a vote for a guy whom they think is going to be beat? Not much.
Anger factor: Sorry to burst the bubble on that one, but study after study shows that anger against one candidate, without a commensurate high level of die-hard support for the opposing candidate, has never won out at the ballot box. Case in point is the picture published today which showed Dubya supporters waiting in an early-voting line, festooned with Bush paraphernalia, while the Kerry supporters in the line, for the most part, wore buttons that featured a large “W” with a red diagonal slash through it. Where was the Kerry gear? Didn’t seem to be in evidence.
Redskins lost: I can’t answer that one, as I never heard of it until CNN and a few of the other Kerry-supporting media outlets began to desperately play that one up 
Bosox won: This one goes under the “hell freezes over” or “when pigs fly” category :-)) Which, in Kerry’s case, probably is the better predictor than all of the other ones cited above But wait! Curt Schilling has endorsed Shrub, it seems, and he’s recorded Bush-supportive phone messages that will be played in a few key states (New Hampshire being one) over the next couple of days. Knowing the fanaticism of Bosox fans (and I’m one of 'em ;-), that may sway a couple or thousand or so votes over to Shrub, huh?
It’s a tough slog for JFK, but maybe, just maybe he can do it.
NOT!! (hee-hee)
David Brinkley Kahuna
**They try to impeach him twice in his second turn. **
They won’t even be able to force a bill of attainment through, because the House and Senate will be Republican majority, unlike in '98, when the House was Republican, and passed the Bill, but the Reeps in the Senate couldn’t muster a 2/3rds majority to convict Billy Bob.
Without the Bill coming out of the House, there won’t be an impeachment, let alone a conviction.
Robert “The Parliamentary Procedures Expert” Byrd Kahuna
First off, your argument is only “theoretically” possible. In all but two or maybe three cases in our history, popular and electoral votes have had the same result, and then it was extremely close anyway. But secondly, the US is NOT a “democracy.” It is a republic, a federation of states. That is why each state gets at least two electoral votes–just for being a state–plus one or more based on population. Over the years, the courts and the populists who have appointed most of our jurists (read Democrats) have eroded the philosphy upon which our country was founded, e.g., that of being a republic. Since the tide has turned and we are becoming an increasingly Republican country (President, both houses of Congress, most Governors and most state legislatures now Republican versus twenty years ago when most were Democrat) hopefully we can turn around this revisionist thinking. By the way, did you know that states are not even required by the Constitution to have direct elections to chose their electors? The Constitution says that staes shall select their electors “in a manner of their choosing.”
I won’t pay any attention to you. You are biased.
I won’t pay any attention to you. You are biased
Well, I’ve never pretended to be anything but. Regardless, no one on the Dem side says that Terry McAuliffe and all of his cheerleaders are wrong just because they’re biased.
You’re just devastated because of the razor-sharp and completely infallible nature of my explication
Too-Smart-For-Mensa Kahuna
– You’re just devastated because of the razor-sharp and completely infallible nature of my explication
Razor-sharp, but dead wrong buddy, you’ll see! Bush winning Hawaii, that is a joke too!
It won’t be “Blue Hawaii” for much longer out here I can feel the winds of change blowing through this old state. “Big Dick” Cheney was out here today, firing up the home crowds.
And what the Big Dick wants, the Big Dick gets ;-))
Wishing I was the Big Dick Kahuna
A Close election it will be…
I’m betting the problems will be simular to the 2000 elections…
But, this is no slam dunk for either candidates… and, if my memory is correct it was you - Tom - that thought this election would be a slam dunk for Bush. Of course, in your defense… you based that opinion on the “quick” military “victory” in Iraq.
I’ve always thought this would be a close race. How close… I wasn’t sure. But, based on what I see now… it will be very close. While it is a winner take all in electoral college… the results may not be as close as the popular election might reflect.
So… why don’t I just settle this once and for all…
Let me grab my box of bones and throw them on the floor… just a minute…
OK…(drum roll please)
It’s official… Kerry wins by a lawyer from the state of Florida… wait, no… that’s a lawyer from Ohio… no, wait… that’s not a lawyer… thats a dust ball… MAN… I’ve got to keep this floor cleaner if I’m going to throw my bones down… this election is just too important to leave it to a dust ball.
Another bag of bones - please…
FWIW Joe Moya
I agree with the fact that Zogby is a better (if there is such a thing in this election) poll indicator for this election… they seem to have done a better job of defining voters most likely to vote… and, better yet… they actually polled those who have mobil phones ONLY. Surprise… Surprise… this group is mostly between the age of 19-24 and in college. Zogby noted that they showed tendency to vote for Kerry by 15 points.
But, it’s tough to deny that the Redskin corelation is 100% since 1936 (I think that is the date)… Hmmm…
The next closes corelative information is the market relationship (it’s something like 94%)… for this corelation to side with Bush… the market would have to move up about 2+% in two days… now, that would be tough to see happening unless something extremely dramatic happens on Monday and/or Tuesday. This seems to also be verified and reflected by the Iowa electoral futures market (typically a decent indicator of popular vote sentiment - i.e., commonly called Iowa Electronic Markets).
All in all… I do believe the typical polls accuracies will be tested for many reasons… the key one being…so many new voters.
This is going to be interesting election… A election that WILL NOT END on November 2nd… I feel certain about this delay… how long of a delay? …tough to tell at this point.
FWIW Joe Moya
if I was american, why the hell would I vote,
But you’re not, so go sit in the corner while us big boys pick up sides, and maybe we’ll let you get in the game if we’re up big in the 4th quarter (hee-hee)
Just kidding, mon ami. Keep firing away. It makes for interesting discussion.
“Secretly A Francophile At Heart” Kahuna
Francois, you sound like my deceased grandmother. You spend way too much time worrying about somethings that never happen.
OK, fair enough. I really like the electoral college. I hate the injection of lawyers. I remember way back when, when candidates accepted the results of elections and congratulated the winners. Sadly, Mr. Gore didn’t have the morals of Mr. Nixon, but the electoral college only helps that process.
But for the electoral college, a close election in a direct popular vote would turn the entire country into Florida 2000. Instead, the disputes were confined to a single state, making the problem more manageable. What is the alternative? A nationwide chad hunt?
2000 also displayed a good feature of the electoral college. It gives a slight weighting to the smaller states. Bush won on the basis of that slight weighting. The logic behind the college is that small states would be overwhelmed by the big states without it. The same logic applies to the organization of the US Senate.
If we had a direct popular vote, the candidates would further polarize the electorate. Kerry would pander to CA and the Northeast and try to run up huge margins there by flogging as many people as possible to the polls. He would blow off the rest of the country. Bush would do likewise with Texas and the South. Frankly, I don’t really care whether CA goes for the Democrat by 500,000 or 2,000,000. They get there say and the rest of the country does the same.
A direct popular election would be the system that would ignore a huge part of the population. No one would care what Wisconsin or any reasonably balanced state would think in that scenario. The population would be polarized nationally in much the same way gerrymandering has essentially eliminated competition for Congressional seats.
We now have a system in which the candidates have to appeal to voters in states that are closely balanced between the two parties. The candidates fight over the middle ground, instead of the extremes. That is how I think the process should work.
Does anyone know what % of the population lives in big cities vs. the % of population in rural communities or small towns/cities?
I don’t understand the logic that just because 10,000,000 voters might live in a big city, somehow their votes should potentially count less than 10,000,000 country folks. No one gives a rats ass about my state now, and they wouldn’t if we had a direct popular vote, either.