"If the election were held today" An electoral college map.

[CalebHayes]

http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html#map

[mac2]

1. Don't believe this poll.....

Especially for states such as Alaska. They're pretty upset about ANWAR. They actually want to leave the union. The Blue states might be concerned over losing their guns with Bush. They've been upset about their farms and enviornment.

This map is from the old Bush stolen election not the new Anti-Bush feel of the country.

[krkaufman]

33. Alaskans upset about ANWR?

Really? I thought a lot of Alaskans were pro-drilling, for the boost it would give their economy?

[atre]

36. What?? I don't think we've EVER carried Alaska.

nm

[ButterflyBlood]

38. LBJ did in 1964

that's the only time.

[atre]

56. I stand corrected...

but I still think we can pretty much write off their 3 electoral votes.

[West Coast Democrat]

2. Since when are NM solid and Iowa leaning GOP?

that's lame.

[CalebHayes]

5. Yeah, we got Iowa.

[West Coast Democrat]

8. We won New Mexico too....

so when did it become "solidly GOP?"

[Ficus]

23. with Richardson as an asset there

I think that only builds on our victory in 2000.

[CalebHayes]

46. agreed.

[MessiahRp]

24. Iowa, NM should be ours...

Serious flaws in this analysis... almost seems like a GOP poll.

Here's my issue:

Iowa and New Mexico will likely go Democrat for sure...

Arizona and Missouri are in no way stronghold for Bush in fact I would say they lean towards us...

Tennessee which Gore lost because he didn't bother in the South has trended Democratic since with their Gubernatorial race and don't dismiss Harold Ford, Jr.'s effect on the race as a campaigner for Kerry. We lost there very narrowly in 2000, but I think we win that state in 2004.

Another is West Virginia which with a 4 point exception in 2000, it has always been a Democratic state. I think we'll win there again (especially since I don't see Kerry only cherry picking states to campaign in, the foolish mistake Gore made).

If you do it by the States I think we'll win it would look like this:
Kerry 303
Bush 235

The states I think we win are: WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM, HI, MN, IA, MO, AR, WI, MI, IL, TN, WV, PA, DE, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME

Sound far fetched? We won all of those states in 2000 minus Arkansas, Tennessee, Arizona, and West Virginia. The margins of losses in those states were all less than 5%.

Rp

[lancdem]

25. Check out this sentence in the analysis

However, Kerry's support is strengthening because rank and file Democrats have been yearning to get behind a single person who would lead the charge against Bush. The SOLID KERRY states are solidifying behind him, while the LEANING BUSH and LEANING KERRY states are moving more in that direction.

Sounds like good news. (BTW, I think your scenario is not at all far-fetched.)

[West Coast Democrat]

27. I'm not sure about TN, but NH Leans Democratic surely

We may even win Florida (again!)

[Redneck Socialist]

29. I wouldn't go that far

NH may be in play, but it decidedly leans pub.

[West Coast Democrat]

31. With Kerry on the ticket, NH leans Democratic

you have to admit.

[Redneck Socialist]

54. Nope

Especially not in NH. "Dem dere flat landers from Taxachusetts ain't too popular up dis aways, no suh."

Massachusetts liberal doesn't play any better in NH that it does in the south. Actually I think the attitude in NH could more correctly be described as libertarian than what passes for Republican these days. No taxes, no seat belts, no helmets and lots of guns is pretty much what we are all about.

I haven't seen any polling yet but I would put it 60/40 bush/Kerry at best right now. Our governor and our entire delegation is Republican and likely to stay that way this year.

That said I do think that we have an outside shot at winning NH. But if Kerry ends up being the nominee he is going to have to run a much better campaign than Gore did. Gore only lost by 7,000 some odd votes here (less than Nader got BTW) but familiarity breeds contempt. Gore was better liked and had more appeal here than Kerry does.

[CalebHayes]

28. I mean, we have it now. For sure since we have been campaigning there...

forever.

[DU9598]

19. Recent Iowa Poll

Shows Kerry leading Bush in Iowa by 9 points. Why would this site have Iowa leaning Republican. That will not happen here, too much outsourcing of our jobs to Mexico since 2000.

[lancdem]

21. Iowa hasn't voted for a GOP president in years

Gore won the state and Clinton did twice.

[DU9598]

30. Even Dukakis

Yes, in 1988 Iowa went for Gov. Dukakis. We are also signing up many more Democrats - I hear Democrats picked up about 16,000 new party members during the caucuses.

[Ficus]

20. no question about it

check out this article on the number of new voters we got during the caucuses. No way this state is going red. (or blue on that terrible map)

"Number of New Voters Boom in Iowa"
http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/23554790.html

[lancdem]

13. I thought that was questionable, too

And don't we have a chance in Ariz.? They have it solid GOP. If you read the analysis, they say Bush may lose his leaning states above the Mason-Dixon line and win the ones below. If we win Ohio, for instance, that alone would put us over the top.

[LynneSin]

18. You read my mind and then posted it yourself

I thought the same thing.

Iowa and NM are toss up states at worse

[Sagan]

3. they think Ohio is going to "lean Bush"?

I have to question that, at least.

[nickinSTL]

9. MO solid Bush?

I have my doubts about MO being SOLID Bush.

Not that we don't have our share of Bush supporters, I suppose, but considering the economy around here, Bush shouldn't count on MO if the economy doesn't improve.

That and the fact that despite the Republican senators and Republican state house, we do have a few Democrats in office, including the Governor (though he's not too popular lately)

Solid for Bush? I doubt that.

[0rganism]

39. Note that Ohio alone has enough electoral votes to tip the balance

Switch OH around on that map, we win by 6 votes.

This map has all kinds of fuckups, tho. NM and LA, both of which recently elected Democratic governors and/or senators, are shown solid GOP. Gack. Who comes up with this shit?

[wuushew]

4. These maps are always wrong

A the explaination for the picks are not given either.

Why is NH going Dem and IA going Bush? Again no window on the thinking process. You would think that strong turnout in primary after primary would tell these guys something.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. Their GOP leaners are all wrong

give us those 28 votes from Iowa and Ohio please and we win.

[lancdem]

15. I feel pretty confident Kerry can keep all his leaner states

since most are in the Rust Belt, where Bush's popularity is dropping like a rock. I also think we can pick up some of Bush's leaners. BTW, why is W.Va. still leaning GOP? :shrug:

[still_one]

7. Sorry but that projection is BS

Oh well just might as well stay home and not vote, NOT!

[still_one]

10. This looks like a projection from Ann Coulter

[Monument]

11. Why are the red states BLUE and the blue states RED.

this electoral map has the colors reversed. Who in the world (by now) doesnt' realize that Massachusetts is a BLUE state. I realize it has no bearing on the information which he is trying to relay, but how can I trust a map which has such a fundamental flaw?

[ringmastery]

17. It's not a flaw

the incumbent party is always blue

the challenger is always red.

[sampsonblk]

12. Missouri = Solid Bush?

I think not.

[West Coast Democrat]

14. This reminds me of those websites I'd run into in 2000......

Republican websites featuring electoral maps that showed Bush would win with 300+ electoral votes. I recall one in which the web owner predicted Bush would win Illinois and California.

[aldian159]

32. Win IL?

Over Daley's dead body!

[JasonDeter]

16. If you read the fine print, it says, "Ya Ya thats the ticket."

9 months to the election and they've already given bush* (the most hated man on the planet) a landslide?

[lancdem]

22. Actually, 286 to 252 is not a landslide

It's a helluva lot closer than what the WH wants, that's for sure. A state or two swings to Kerry and he wins.

[Rolling Titanic]

26. All those states that everyone is saying

can't be leaning Bush are the ones where Nader's participation made the most difference. Iowa 2.2%, New Mexico 3.6 %, Florida 1.63% Switch those three and we win hands down.

[Rowsdower]

34. Edwards is the toughest opponent

look at the matchups on there. Edwards looks like the way to go.

[CalebHayes]

35. I worry about him in NC.

[atre]

37. Edwards in N.C.

I hear about this concern all the time. Granted, this is only anecdotal evidence, but at least a third of the lifetime Republicans I know and know well say that they would probably vote for Edwards over Bush

[mohc]

41. It appears this analysis does not give Edward NC

My estimation is that they swung Iowa and Arkansas into the Dem column. Which means they assume Edwards will not win NC. If he somehow could, then he would actually have an electoral majority by this estimation. Then again, I have to disagree with a good bit of their conclusions anyway.

edited: typo

[amandabeech]

42. If this poll doesn't give Edwards NC outright

Edwards may move NC from solidly Bush to leaning Bush. Edwards may have the same result in other Bush states. On the other hand, it is possible that some solidly Dem states move to leaning Dem if Edwards is the candidate.

It would be great if they would show maps for Edwards & Dean now.


Amanda

[mlawson]

49. I live in NC. Don't worry about him in NC.

Everyone I know is for Edwards. I have never heard or read negative about him here; the only bashing I have ever seen is in DU.

These 'truisms' that "Edwards can't even win NC", have been around here for over a year, started by DUers who categorically oppose him. Once something is said enough times, it becomes "true".

[mlawson]

50. Yep, too bad the DNC doesn't seem to care.

But then again, electibility is rarely their chief concern, anyway.

[amandabeech]

40. I'd like to see more of the pollsters' data than this map shows

For example:

1. The choices given to voters; e.g., is their a third party or no-vote option?

2. Maps for the other candidates, esp. Edwards (who gets 13 more votes than Kerry--NC) and Dean.

3. Actual percentages for each state.


Amanda

[CalebHayes]

44. You can get lots of cool info in the exit polling.

It's amazing how many questions they ask. I was reading some for NH and it looks like that will be ours in Nov.

[CalebHayes]

45. You can get lots of cool info in the exit polling.

It's amazing how many questions they ask. I was reading some for NH and it looks like that will be ours in Nov.

[amandabeech]

47. Sounds interesting

Where is this information normally posted? At network and pollster sites?

Amanda

[CalebHayes]

52. I found mine on MSNBC just as the polls closed in NH

[flaminbats]

43. Now I see why Evan Bayh is getting the most attention as a running mate.

A Kerry/Bayh ticket could win in Ohio and Indiana, bringing in 283 electoral votes.

[amandabeech]

48. Would Bayh be that much better than Gephardt or Edwards

in Indiana and Ohio?

Bayh is a Democratic senator in a conservative state. Who will the governor of Indiana be in Nov.? If it's a Dem, then another Dem would be appointed to fill Bayh's seat; if it's a Repug, then we Dems lose a Senate seat.

If Gep or Edwards (or Clark)were the VP candidate, we wouldn't lost any seat that we might not lose otherwise.

The same goes for Kerry. If Kerry wins the nomination and wins the election, then Romney, the Repug governor of Mass, chooses his replacement, which will undoubtedly be a Repug.

I don't want to lose more Senate seats than necessary in order to gain the Presidency. It'll be tough enough if the new Dem president has to deal with a Repug House, and a more Repug Senate would only make it worse.


Amanda

[snippy]

51. This is meaningless without some description of the methodology used.

It may or may not be very sound analysis but it is impossible to tell without knowing what type of data are used to make the predictions.

[amandabeech]

53. After tonight

I'd really like to see both the Edwards and Kerry maps despite any deficiencies in methodology and lack of detail.

If Edwards gets more visibility after a good showing in Wisconsin, his appeal to independents and moderate Repugs might show up with a state or two moving from leaning Repug to leaning Dem. I have to admit, I'd enjoy a little horse race, even though I have a favorable view of both Edwards and Kerry.

Amanda

[SerpentX]

55. Bad analysis

AZ, MO, NM are certainly in play.

LA, NV might be.

FL is a jump ball. IA might be as well.

KY looks better after today.

[JCMach1]

57. You are right major problems with this analysis...

However, it should underscore the electoral difficulties and point to why

Graham, Edwards, or Clark needs to be on the ticket... Regardless of who has the top.

[SerpentX]

58. Clark has been my veep choice since before he through his hat in.

I don't see how the repukes could trump a Kerry/Clark ticket. We'd beat 'em to death with the same club they used against us in '02.