NationStates Jolt Archive

All the Red and Blue states here: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

On a side note, that map does confirm at least one thing my political science lecturer kept telling us. Those from the inland states are more Republican than the costal states, which are more democrats. Strange strange strange.

I have a problem with the dates that figure on some states when you scroll over them, some pols are to old.

Any way, I hope they are correct, will be best for the US and the world.
Nice to know that states like Nebraska will devide the electoral vote.

It's now 291-247, but I noticed one thing: Give Florida to Bush, and he wins 274-264.

It's now 291-247, but I noticed one thing: Give Florida to Bush, and he wins 274-264.

Or give California to Bush, they have a republican govner "Aaarnhold", or am I wrong about that possibility (I am not a US'er)? In some EU countries, it is onlmy the popular vote that counts (BENELUX, Germany, Spain, Italy) in other they have a system in wich each region sends a numbre of pesrons to the parliament or with presidentials, they have to 50% majority, if not, the 2 strongest candidates have a second term (France) (UK).

Everything is possible in the US, just the system sucks, better have a popular vote because it represents the election better.

Can California be Rep? Your opinion as a American? Tought that it was Rep under Reagan to, isn't it?

No polls show California as being even close. It is considered a pocket state for the Democrats. The same goes for Massachusetts, despite the fact that both state have Republican governors. Florida is close, as are about 12 other states.

However, that said, there is a potential landmine in the election this season. Colorado, a relatively centrist, but right-leaning state, has an option on their ballot to make the Electoral College split their votes by district, like Nebraska and Maine do. Maine/Nebraska are both usually left and right states respectively, but Colorado, if it had done this in 2000, would have given the election to Gore. This sets up an interesting possibility, and that is that we could have an electoral tie, which would send the election to the House (the Elected house, not the current.)

/stir "the pot"

Also, you may be correct about Reagan, in fact I am fairly sure you are. There is an X factor there, and that is that Reagan was the governor of California. If Arnold were to run for President (a theoretical possibility now that the Constitution could be amended to let it happen...) California would probably go for him too.

Or give California to Bush, they have a republican govner "Aaarnhold", or am I wrong about that possibility (I am not a US'er)? In some EU countries, it is onlmy the popular vote that counts (BENELUX, Germany, Spain, Italy) in other they have a system in wich each region sends a numbre of pesrons to the parliament or with presidentials, they have to 50% majority, if not, the 2 strongest candidates have a second term (France) (UK).

Everything is possible in the US, just the system sucks, better have a popular vote because it represents the election better.

Can California be Rep? Your opinion as a American? Tought that it was Rep under Reagan to, isn't it?

Ok, I just want to say I have spent HOURS upon HOURS researching this shit. Literally, hours. I can name you the polls and which way they skew. I can tell you where 45 states and one district are going, and I'd be willing to bet 50 bucks I'm right on each one.

I can tell you there are only 5 battleground states left. They are:

Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada.

Kerry just needs Florida to win, or Ohio and one other state.

I'm considering taking Nevada off the battleground list after the surprising Zogby and Survey USA polls that just came in putting Bush far ahead, but bah. Florida and Ohio are both tossups. Rasmussen has closed the gaps in both states to ties, after weeks of putting Bush ahead by first large, then small margins. Iowa and Wisconsin both lean Kerry.

...

In case you are wondering, Kerry has the following supposed battleground states in his pocket: New Mexico, Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, Maine (both districts), Pennsylvania, Oregon, New Jersey, and yes, California.

As well, I'd bet money Bush is taking Arizona, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Colorado.

...

All in all, I'm predicting a Kerry win. Don't be fooled by the numbers on the front pages though, check the polls themselves: http://www.electoral-vote.com/pastpolls.html

Oh, and crytal ball says Colorado's reform wont pass.

Everything is possible in the US, just the system sucks, better have a popular vote because it represents the election better.

A (very) breif explanation of the Electoral College, and why it was implemented, and how it has some benefits over a direct popular vote.

The electoral college is a system where a number of electors are appointed by the individual states and they elect the president. Each state, appoints a number of individuals based on it's population and they in turn elect the president in late december. The winner of the election is required to get the majority of the electoral votes. Each state is free to determine how those electors make their decision. In most states (48 now), whoever wins the popular vote in the state gets ALL of the electoral votes for that state.

Now, to explain the origin. If you weren't aware, at the time of the foundation of this country, the states had been acting as individuals, virtually independant of one another for quite a while. Many of those states were unwilling to give up their autonomy, and much of the population was even unwilling to go against their king and country to begin with. After the first civil war, the debate began on how the country should be run on a federal level.

Since, at the time, only White, Landowning, 'Mature', Males would be given the vote there was a HUGE disparity in the power of individual states in the federal government. At the time, New Englands voting population was so much higher than anywhere else that the rest of the colonies rightly fealt that their own interests would never be represented in the presidency by a pure popular vote. Instead they develloped the above system, which would represent more closely the concerns of the general populace, because the number of electors was determined by the population of the state (including women, children, indians, and even slaves (at only 3/5th's unfortunately)). So therefore, a state with only 1000 voters, but 30,000 people was just as important to the selection of the presidency than one with 10,000 voters but also only 30,000 people.

When you fastforward to today, the same rules still apply, though to a slightly less severe extent. The vast majority of the population live in the cities of this country. A third of the populace live in a 10th of the states. In a pure popular vote election their exists a great posibilty for candidates to focus on those areas where the population is most dense, and ingnore the concerns of the rest of the country.

Remember, the United States is not a Democracy. We are a Republic (where representatives are elected democratically). It is very important to realize that the majority, isn't always right. And while situations can exist where more people want the losing candidate, in the vast majority of times, this system prefers the majoritys view to be represented. However, it also allows the rest of the nation to allow their own voice to be heard, and be considered just as important as New York, California, and Texas.

Thank's for your informative reply Cholodo, I also really hope he wins Florida, let it be a retaliation for the fraud 4 years ago.

Thank's Pithica for your work to. But I was aware about how the system works, like I know from almost each country (I read about 4 papers a day and am a political animal)just did not know about the splitting of the electoral vote.

pithica - ignorance at its best


your example is null and void in the light of the fact that the incumbants and challengers only go to battlegroundstates for their parties. any other state is guaranteed for the opponent or yourself and thus not worth visting. if we open it up to popular vote they will be required to travel around much more because that way more than half of the nations votes will now actually apply to the election

When you fastforward to today, the same rules still apply, though to a slightly less severe extent. The vast majority of the population live in the cities of this country. A third of the populace live in a 10th of the states. In a pure popular vote election their exists a great posibilty for candidates to focus on those areas where the population is most dense, and ingnore the concerns of the rest of the country.

In the situation we have now, their exists a great possibility for candidates to focus on the midwest and Florida, and ignore the whole damn rest of the country.

Remember, the United States is not a Democracy. We are a Republic (where representatives are elected democratically). It is very important to realize that the majority, isn't always right. And while situations can exist where more people want the losing candidate, in the vast majority of times, this system prefers the majoritys view to be represented. However, it also allows the rest of the nation to allow their own voice to be heard, and be considered just as important as New York, California, and Texas.

New York, Cali, and Texas are just as irrelevant as Connecticut, Montana, Rhode Island, and Wyoming in choosing the president.

A HANDFUL OF MIDWESTERN STATES AND FLORIDA PICK THE PRESIDENT.

The electoral college sucks shit and there's no way around it.

Although...doing a nationwide recount would also suck. But hey, it sure beats what we have now.

"Electoral vote predictor: Kerry 284 - Bush 247"

ROFLMAO!!!!

"Electoral vote predictor: Kerry 284 - Bush 247"

ROFLMAO!!!!

Grab the vaseline and some tissue and head over here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366940 ;)

*Hands over a barrel of vaseline* :)

Why do you lot talk such rubish please reply! i mean you havnt even disscussed the issue of why weazelbags rant as good as skunkpots!!!! :sniper: :mp5: :headbang: :gundge:

pithica - ignorance at its best

your example is null and void in the light of the fact that the incumbants and challengers only go to battlegroundstates for their parties. any other state is guaranteed for the opponent or yourself and thus not worth visting. if we open it up to popular vote they will be required to travel around much more because that way more than half of the nations votes will now actually apply to the election

Oh grow the hell up.

I didn't say I thought the system was perfect, or even that it worked. I said that it had some advantages over a Pure popular vote. (And implied that the reverse was true.)

Your contention also, has less to do with the electoral college, and more to do with the two-party system. In a popular vote election, you would be substituting the current 'battleground' states for those states with higher populations. Since over a third of the population can be found in the top 5 states, those would become the most contested the same as now.

The rest of the states wouldn't matter (or would matter just as little as non-battleground states do now), because you can't win as many votes there. If a speech in Wyoming may get me 1000 votes while a speech in New York might get me 10 or even 100x that, I am going to do the latter as a candidate every time. It's is the exact same situation as we have now, just different states and different excuses.

Basil Fawlty wrote:

Thank's for your informative reply Cholodo, I also really hope he wins Florida, let it be a retaliation for the fraud 4 years ago

Basil, Basil, Basil. There was no fraud. There was legal electoral process as laid out in the Constitution. Anyone who submits otherwise is leading you astray.

Oh grow the hell up.

I didn't say I thought the system was perfect, or even that it worked. I said that it had some advantages over a Pure popular vote. (And implied that the reverse was true.).


AND i pointed out that those advantages are null and void and ultimately ignorant to argue your point using.

Oh grow the hell up.

I didn't say I thought the system was perfect, or even that it worked. I said that it had some advantages over a Pure popular vote. (And implied that the reverse was true.)

Your contention also, has less to do with the electoral college, and more to do with the two-party system. In a popular vote election, you would be substituting the current 'battleground' states for those states with higher populations. Since over a third of the population can be found in the top 5 states, those would become the most contested the same as now.

The rest of the states wouldn't matter (or would matter just as little as non-battleground states do now), because you can't win as many votes there. If a speech in Wyoming may get me 1000 votes while a speech in New York might get me 10 or even 100x that, I am going to do the latter as a candidate every time. It's is the exact same situation as we have now, just different states and different excuses.

He ( ChessSquares ) was an abused child. Be gentle. ;)

In the situation we have now, their exists a great possibility for candidates to focus on the midwest and Florida, and ignore the whole damn rest of the country.

You're absolutely right. I think the system needs to be changed myself. But understand that the same thing would happen in a popular vote, the states would just change.

New York, Cali, and Texas are just as irrelevant as Connecticut, Montana, Rhode Island, and Wyoming in choosing the president.

A HANDFUL OF MIDWESTERN STATES AND FLORIDA PICK THE PRESIDENT.

The electoral college sucks shit and there's no way around it.

Although...doing a nationwide recount would also suck. But hey, it sure beats what we have now.

There are a LOT of systems that have none of the problems we have now. However, they all have their own problems. And there seems to be a lot of 'grass being greener' thinking going on in regards to the popular vote.

Just switching to a popular vote will not make the candidates any more representative of the opinions of the nation as a whole. It would just mean that the candidates would focus all of their efforts on the things that the top 5-10 states care about, and ignore the rest of us. Then you would be talking about how much shit it sucks, and about how California, Illinois, New York, Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania get all the attention.

To fix the system you would have to completely restructure it in it's entirety. This is something that won't happen.

Your contention also, has less to do with the electoral college, and more to do with the two-party system. In a popular vote election, you would be substituting the current 'battleground' states for those states with higher populations. Since over a third of the population can be found in the top 5 states, those would become the most contested the same as now.

The rest of the states wouldn't matter (or would matter just as little as non-battleground states do now), because you can't win as many votes there. If a speech in Wyoming may get me 1000 votes while a speech in New York might get me 10 or even 100x that, I am going to do the latter as a candidate every time. It's is the exact same situation as we have now, just different states and different excuses.

Either way, a huge chunk of the population gets shafted. Regardless, I want my vote to count dammit, and I shouldn't have to live in either Ohio or Florida for it to do so. A pure national vote would ensure everyone's vote counts equally.

AND i pointed out that those advantages are null and void and ultimately ignorant to argue your point using.

I wasn't arguing that the electoral college was a perfect, or even superior system. I was explaining the logic behind it. My point was never an argument in a debate over which is better. I don't like either one. Someone made it seem like they didn't know what the system was or why we picked it, so I explained it to them.

In turn, you used statements that were voided by your own reasoning to argue against me and have the gall to call me ignorant?

A HANDFUL OF MIDWESTERN STATES AND FLORIDA PICK THE PRESIDENT.

Thats right! My vote is worth more than yours!

Either way, a huge chunk of the population gets shafted. Regardless, I want my vote to count dammit, and I shouldn't have to live in either Ohio or Florida for it to do so. A pure national vote would ensure everyone's vote counts equally.

A pure national vote would not ensure this. A pure popular vote ensures that the candidates will listen and suck up to the states where they can get the most votes. It would be exactly the same as it is now, only with different states.

In many states you would be better off trying to get the states constitution amended as to how the electors make their decision the way that Colorodo is trying to do now.

Didn't we learn last election not to count our state victories before they're hatched? :)

Seriously though. You just need to hit that 280 mark, and it's done.

As for Electoral College detractors: Until you can come up with a better system, I'll keep this one, thank you very much. It at least gives small states like mine (CT) *some* say.

Futher, it doesn disenfrancise anyone: nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any of us get to vote directly for the President.

Also note that occassions where an elector voted counter to his constituency has been absurdly rare, though the one vote for Ronald Reagan in 1976 comes to mind.

A pure national vote would not ensure this. A pure popular vote ensures that the candidates will listen and suck up to the states where they can get the most votes. It would be exactly the same as it is now, only with different states.

In many states you would be better off trying to get the states constitution amended as to how the electors make their decision the way that Colorodo is trying to do now.

That's an idea, however, it would need to be a national process, all at once.

Could you imagine the chaos if California Republicans try to ram an amendment through, or Texas Democrats try to do the same, all working independantly in partisan interests? It would need to be a federal amendment. Otherwise the few states who pass it become irrelevant, and it skews the electoral college unnecessarily.

I still believe though, that even if the candidate sucks up to the major cities, I would be happy in knowing that my vote counts.

Either way, a huge chunk of the population gets shafted. Regardless, I want my vote to count dammit, and I shouldn't have to live in either Ohio or Florida for it to do so. A pure national vote would ensure everyone's vote counts equally.

With a purely national vote, you gain 3 BIG problems:

1) Fraud. Under the current laws, it doesen't matter if you win a district by 10000 votes or 17, you get the elector. Remember Florida? Even with current technology, it is still not possible to be 100%, or (my guess) even 90% accurate in counting single votes -- at least not in the timely fashion we expect.

2) More Fraud. In small communities, it'd be relatively easy to have the dead vote, etc. Who's going to oversee the voting in Lost City, WV? A few hundred extra votes is EASY to do. A few thousand? Not too hard, either. Repeat, lather, rinse.

3) Under the College, REGIONS still matter. So small population states (South Dakota, Connecticut, New Mexico, et al) can actually state "we like X". Without this tie to the states, candidates could just choose a demographic or three and go for those voters.
Worse, my entire STATE is disenfrancised by Houston. Or New York. Or Detroit. All you'd be doing is moving from a state to a city system!

I believe that the College, while not perfect, is likely as close to is as we're likely to get.

Seriously though. You just need to hit that 280 mark, and it's done.
270, not 280. Interestingly, a 269-269 tie is resolved in Congress.

As for Electoral College detractors: Until you can come up with a better system, I'll keep this one, thank you very much. It at least gives small states like mine (CT) *some* say.
Sorry, your state has as much say as California: NONE. In 2000, the election was decided in a handful of midwestern states and Florida, and it looks to be the same again.

Futher, it doesn disenfrancise anyone: nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any of us get to vote directly for the President.
True...

Also note that occassions where an elector voted counter to his constituency has been absurdly rare, though the one vote for Ronald Reagan in 1976 comes to mind.
Actually, there's plenty of instances. In 2000, a DC elector abstained in protest of their district not having Congressional representation. In 1988, a WV elector voted for Bensten as pres and Dukakis as VP. Go figure. In 1972, a Virginia elector voted for Libertarian candidate Hospers. In 1960, an Oklahoma elector voted Barry Goldwater to be VP. In 1948, a Tennessee elector voted for segregationist Strom Thurmond instead of Truman.

And now, this year, a WV elector has threatened to not vote for Bush. :p

Dead man voting: Chicago, IL... Nixon re-election (if memory serves, I was youngish at the time). Not a small community. Not pure national voting.

I know a lot of people who protest voting because they think their individual vote ought to count as ONE individual vote. I can agree with that. I think, if the majority of the voters want a particular candidate, that is just as reflective as the majority of the electoral college wanting a particular candidate (maybe moreso). Who gives a flip about state to state crap. One person, one vote. Why is that a national tragedy?

Even though it's going the way I want it to go, I still have to be consistant and say poll worship is a little out of hand. We still have two weeks, the polls have been shockingly inaccurate in the last couple of years, and there is still road to travel. Unfortunetaly we waste that time doing donuts on the shoulder about gay daughters and who shows what documentary where and when than discussing the issues, but such is the media age.

Even though it's going the way I want it to go, I still have to be consistant and say poll worship is a little out of hand. We still have two weeks, the polls have been shockingly inaccurate in the last couple of years, and there is still road to travel. Unfortunetaly we waste that time doing donuts on the shoulder about gay daughters and who shows what documentary where and when than discussing the issues, but such is the media age.

It's funny when people latch onto one poll, and trumpet it around. I picked up a USA Today on Monday, and the headline was "BUSH LEADS KERRY 8%!"

Never mind that other polls coming out this and last week have put them tied, or even Kerry ahead. The media latches onto whatever it likes (and no, that does not necessarily mean liberal spin. ;))

What fools people the most is national polls versus state polls. Most national polls showed Bush with sizable leads going into the 2000 election, and look what happened, he lost by half a percent. Only Zogby and CBS polled that Gore might win the popular vote.

I'm comfortably in my own knowledge of the polls, which I've researched extensively, but it bothers me that the polls themselves may be swaying public opinion. Well, if you're stupid enough to vote for someone cause you think they're winning... :rolleyes:

Basil Fawlty wrote:



Basil, Basil, Basil. There was no fraud. There was legal electoral process as laid out in the Constitution. Anyone who submits otherwise is leading you astray.

Sorry, not counting all votes and abusing the law in a state governeted by a party that stops the counting when it is in a small favour of his own, kowing that a few 10.000 votes of the opposite side will kill you is fraud for me.

Same for the votes of the dems found back in the garbadge after the recount. The Republicans should shame themselves for this fascist behavior, in the free world, we have not forget how the regime of Bush took power.

Sorry, not counting all votes and abusing the law in a state governeted by a party that stops the counting when it is in a small favour of his own, kowing that a few 10.000 votes of the opposite side will kill you is fraud for me.

Same for the votes of the dems found back in the garbadge after the recount. The Republicans should shame themselves for this fascist behavior, in the free world, we have not forget how the regime of Bush took power.

I'm glad... thanks for that. It's good to know some folks in other countries appreciate our plight ;).

Don't know if anyone else has seen this from the Gallup website, but it is useful if you want to come up with your own predictions of the electoral votes this election. Allows you to pick who will carry which state, the electoral votes it is worth, and some nice info to go with it. Try checking it out.

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/showdown/

Don't know if anyone else has seen this from the Gallup website, but it is useful if you want to come up with your own predictions of the electoral votes this election. Allows you to pick who will carry which state, the electoral votes it is worth, and some nice info to go with it. Try checking it out.

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/showdown/

Must more useful and fun (it even has every election going back to Washington) is this one: http://grayraven.com/ec/

I'm still willing to put my bet on "W". I expect him to sweep the electoral.

I also am willing to bet that the Dems muck everything up in court when they lose - even if it is an asswhoopin.

I'm still willing to put my bet on "W". I expect him to sweep the electoral.

I also am willing to bet that the Dems muck everything up in court when they lose - even if it is an asswhoopin.

Drop the partisan bullshit. Both sides have lined up thousands of lawyers.

In fact, the lawsuits have already begun: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041020/ap_on_el_pr/voting_lawsuits

270, not 280. Interestingly, a 269-269 tie is resolved in Congress.

Sorry, your state has as much say as California: NONE. In 2000, the election was decided in a handful of midwestern states and Florida, and it looks to be the same again.

True...

Actually, there's plenty of instances. In 2000, a DC elector abstained in protest of their district not having Congressional representation. In 1988, a WV elector voted for Bensten as pres and Dukakis as VP. Go figure. In 1972, a Virginia elector voted for Libertarian candidate Hospers. In 1960, an Oklahoma elector voted Barry Goldwater to be VP. In 1948, a Tennessee elector voted for segregationist Strom Thurmond instead of Truman.

And now, this year, a WV elector has threatened to not vote for Bush. :p

Oops, sorry about that. Yes, 270 is the correct number.

Sure, that's true in this election... maybe. :) My point is that if a state somehow goes "the other way", it does make a difference. Florida and Ohio were very *unimportant* in previous elections. And, should Cali actually go Bush by some miricle, suddenly Florida doesn't matter. (Yes, I follow http://www.electoral-vote.com and know what's going on).

But if you look at it as a whole, that's still a very small percentage of electors not doing the right thing. I submit that it's likely a better average than if we had direct representation. Consider: all of a sudden, EVERY town's Registrar is now tempted to meddle...

Oops, sorry about that. Yes, 270 is the correct number.

Sure, that's true in this election... maybe. :) My point is that if a state somehow goes "the other way", it does make a difference. Florida and Ohio were very *unimportant* in previous elections. And, should Cali actually go Bush by some miricle, suddenly Florida doesn't matter. (Yes, I follow http://www.electoral-vote.com and know what's going on).

But if you look at it as a whole, that's still a very small percentage of electors not doing the right thing. I submit that it's likely a better average than if we had direct representation. Consider: all of a sudden, EVERY town's Registrar is now tempted to meddle...

I'm sorry, but I find it very, very hard to think that Bush will take California.

Southern California has a HUGE music scene, and it's pretty much all anti-bush oreinted right now. It warms the heart to see art galleries outside various venues advertising anti-Bush days, for people to bring in their own stuff :p



And lets face it: Arnie didn't get elected because of politics, he was elected because of Hollywood. I'm pretty sure EVERY Californian knows that.

And lets face it: Arnie didn't get elected because of politics, he was elected because of Hollywood. I'm pretty sure EVERY Californian knows that.
Well, at least he's a moderate in social matters, like McCain.

Anyhow, when states are considered "locks" the candidates never bother to go there. In direct election, the candidates would hit all the major cities, but they'd do so in ALL the states (or at least a lot more than right now).

I'm sorry, but I find it very, very hard to think that Bush will take California.

Southern California has a HUGE music scene, and it's pretty much all anti-bush oreinted right now. It warms the heart to see art galleries outside various venues advertising anti-Bush days, for people to bring in their own stuff :p

And lets face it: Arnie didn't get elected because of politics, he was elected because of Hollywood. I'm pretty sure EVERY Californian knows that.

Like I said... by some miricle!

I personally have stopped buying music from artists that tell people how to vote. I think that celebrities should stick to endorsing cars or peanut butter.

Yep. And that's what galls me all the more.

It's funny when people latch onto one poll, and trumpet it around. I picked up a USA Today on Monday, and the headline was "BUSH LEADS KERRY 8%!"

Never mind that other polls coming out this and last week have put them tied, or even Kerry ahead. The media latches onto whatever it likes (and no, that does not necessarily mean liberal spin. ;))

What fools people the most is national polls versus state polls. Most national polls showed Bush with sizable leads going into the 2000 election, and look what happened, he lost by half a percent. Only Zogby and CBS polled that Gore might win the popular vote.

I'm comfortably in my own knowledge of the polls, which I've researched extensively, but it bothers me that the polls themselves may be swaying public opinion. Well, if you're stupid enough to vote for someone cause you think they're winning... :rolleyes:Steve Soto over at the Left Coaster has been doing some looking at Gallup's demographics in that poll that gives Bush an 8 point lead. Here's how he breaks it down. Because according to Gallup’s poll this week, they expect the electorate to be 85% white, 41% conservative while only 19% liberal, and a third to make over $75,000 per year.
Much as the Republican party--parts of it at least--would like the electorate to break that way, there's no way it happens, not this time around.

"Electoral vote predictor: Kerry 284 - Bush 247"

ROFLMAO!!!!
That is funny--it's not going to be that close. Kerry will break the 300 mark in electoral votes.

I my own recent poll of the voting age citizens who live in my house, Kerry wins 2:0.

Funny how polls work.

That is funny--it's not going to be that close. Kerry will break the 300 mark in electoral votes.

I agree. Bush will have to have a 4% margin or more on the last poll to even break even. Undecideds generally break 3-1 for the challenger, and the influx of new voters (who never appear in polls) are decidedly Kerry-leaning.

Like I said... by some miricle!

I personally have stopped buying music from artists that tell people how to vote. I think that celebrities should stick to endorsing cars or peanut butter.

Yep. And that's what galls me all the more.

Hey, I thought the point of art was to express yourself. I don't think any of them are trying to tell others how to vote, but they've certainly got a right to express their own points and opinions. Why is it okay for a celeb to tell you what cell-phone to buy and not okay for a celeb to express themselves in music? Remember Bob Dylan? The Beatles? John Lennon (solo)? They didn't do so badly expressing that they didn't like the government, did they?

I agree. Bush will have to have a 4% margin or more on the last poll to even break even. Undecideds generally break 3-1 for the challenger, and the influx of new voters (who never appear in polls) are decidedly Kerry-leaning.
And I'm thinking the national vote will be somewhere in the Kerry 52 - Bush 46 - Badnarik 1. Nader could potentially finish fifth, although I think fourth is more likely.

I don't think Kerry will do THAT well. At most a 1 to 2% popular vote lead, and I'm pretty much guessing today's electoral-vote.com is what's going to happen. Kerry takes Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin, but loses Ohio and Nevada. The other states go their expected ways. 291-247 Kerry win.

All the Red and Blue states here: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

On a side note, that map does confirm at least one thing my political science lecturer kept telling us. Those from the inland states are more Republican than the costal states, which are more democrats. Strange strange strange.

I have a problem with the dates that figure on some states when you scroll over them, some pols are to old.

Any way, I hope they are correct, will be best for the US and the world.
Nice to know that states like Nebraska will devide the electoral vote.

Real Clear Politics has a nice map complete with what states are leaning which way and the toss up states.

www.realclearpolitics.com

click on the link that says EV count: Bush 227 Kerry 210! It breaks it down.

Or give California to Bush, they have a republican govner "Aaarnhold", or am I wrong about that possibility (I am not a US'er)? In some EU countries, it is onlmy the popular vote that counts (BENELUX, Germany, Spain, Italy) in other they have a system in wich each region sends a numbre of pesrons to the parliament or with presidentials, they have to 50% majority, if not, the 2 strongest candidates have a second term (France) (UK).

Everything is possible in the US, just the system sucks, better have a popular vote because it represents the election better.

Can California be Rep? Your opinion as a American? Tought that it was Rep under Reagan to, isn't it?
That's because they were movie stars. Californians love their movie stars.

That is funny--it's not going to be that close. Kerry will break the 300 mark in electoral votes.

One Word: Doubtful

Hey, I thought the point of art was to express yourself. I don't think any of them are trying to tell others how to vote, but they've certainly got a right to express their own points and opinions. Why is it okay for a celeb to tell you what cell-phone to buy and not okay for a celeb to express themselves in music? Remember Bob Dylan? The Beatles? John Lennon (solo)? They didn't do so badly expressing that they didn't like the government, did they?

Exactly.

And they're funny about it too! :D

But there's one thing I've seen MORE then anti-Bush, and it's pro-voting. Nearly every band I've seen for the past month or two has ALWAYS told us people watching and listening them to go out and vote. Best one:

"Don't forget to vote you guys, 'cause it's really important. And make sure your friends vote too! And if they don't want to, tell them how lame that is. You guys don't wanna be lame. Lame kids don't vote. Remember that. Yeah, that's our new slogan: 'Don't be lame, vote, dumbass!'"

It would be hilarious if this happened.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/Foxxinnia/hilarious.jpg

It would be hilarious if this happened.
There's nothing at all funny about that.

It would be hilarious if this happened.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/Foxxinnia/hilarious.jpg

Judging by the picture, if that should happen, then the House will get involved. If they do then Bush will win re-election.

amazing hom many people will vote for a traitor* becuase he's not Bush. If the democrats haddn't picked such a slime as their man I might have voted for him.

He lied to the senate in 1971 claiming that all US troops (including himself, so if he's not lying then he's a war criminal) were commiting atrocites, which it has been fairly well proven never happened. thereby turning public opinion against the war. this is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, AKA treason. but the media swept it all under the rug and no one but a few of his fellows that served with Kerry in vietnam have the guts to address that issue.

I'm sorry, I just can't vote someone who's loyalty to this country is in doubt, I mean the Vietcong have openly admitted that without Kerry's testimony (and the strong anti-war sentiment it bred) they would have had to surrender.

I'm going to be seriously Ill the morning after if the headline tells me that Kerry won.

A (very) breif explanation of the Electoral College, and why it was implemented, and how it has some benefits over a direct popular vote.

The electoral college is a system where a number of electors are appointed by the individual states and they elect the president. Each state, appoints a number of individuals based on it's population and they in turn elect the president in late december. The winner of the election is required to get the majority of the electoral votes. Each state is free to determine how those electors make their decision. In most states (48 now), whoever wins the popular vote in the state gets ALL of the electoral votes for that state.

Now, to explain the origin. If you weren't aware, at the time of the foundation of this country, the states had been acting as individuals, virtually independant of one another for quite a while. Many of those states were unwilling to give up their autonomy, and much of the population was even unwilling to go against their king and country to begin with. After the first civil war, the debate began on how the country should be run on a federal level.

Since, at the time, only White, Landowning, 'Mature', Males would be given the vote there was a HUGE disparity in the power of individual states in the federal government. At the time, New Englands voting population was so much higher than anywhere else that the rest of the colonies rightly fealt that their own interests would never be represented in the presidency by a pure popular vote. Instead they develloped the above system, which would represent more closely the concerns of the general populace, because the number of electors was determined by the population of the state (including women, children, indians, and even slaves (at only 3/5th's unfortunately)). So therefore, a state with only 1000 voters, but 30,000 people was just as important to the selection of the presidency than one with 10,000 voters but also only 30,000 people.

When you fastforward to today, the same rules still apply, though to a slightly less severe extent. The vast majority of the population live in the cities of this country. A third of the populace live in a 10th of the states. In a pure popular vote election their exists a great posibilty for candidates to focus on those areas where the population is most dense, and ingnore the concerns of the rest of the country.

Remember, the United States is not a Democracy. We are a Republic (where representatives are elected democratically). It is very important to realize that the majority, isn't always right. And while situations can exist where more people want the losing candidate, in the vast majority of times, this system prefers the majoritys view to be represented. However, it also allows the rest of the nation to allow their own voice to be heard, and be considered just as important as New York, California, and Texas.

Thanks for putting these pro-popular voters in place. You did it with much more patience than I usually do. Return senators to their rightful place: elected by state legislatures as well.

amazing hom many people will vote for a traitor* becuase he's not Bush. If the democrats haddn't picked such a slime as their man I might have voted for him.

He lied to the senate in 1971 claiming that all US troops (including himself, so if he's not lying then he's a war criminal) were commiting atrocites, which it has been fairly well proven never happened. thereby turning public opinion against the war. this is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, AKA treason. but the media swept it all under the rug and no one but a few of his fellows that served with Kerry in vietnam have the guts to address that issue.

I'm sorry, I just can't vote someone who's loyalty to this country is in doubt, I mean the Vietcong have openly admitted that without Kerry's testimony (and the strong anti-war sentiment it bred) they would have had to surrender.

I'm going to be seriously Ill the morning after if the headline tells me that Kerry won.You're more likely to be ill from all the bullshit you've ingested and started spewing out. Kerry's loyalty to this country is no more in doubt than mine is.

Return senators to their rightful place: elected by state legislatures as well.

I will second this.

Here's some reading material for ya:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

the Constitution
Article. II.
Section. 1.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

12th Amendment
and Section 3 of 20th Amendment

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Article. II.
Section. 1.

Explains what happens in the event of a tie.

Not just the tie Eudeminea, but this will occur if NO CANDIDATE gets the necessary 270 Electoral Votes.

Not just the tie Eudeminea, but this will occur if NO CANDIDATE gets the necessary 270 Electoral Votes.
True, but the only way that will happen under our current two party system is in the event of a tie, or in the event that Kerry gets 268 and that elector from West Virginia keeps his promise and doesn't vote for Bush if he wins the state.

(from the 12th amendment)

and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

Real Clear Politics has a nice map complete with what states are leaning which way and the toss up states.

www.realclearpolitics.com

click on the link that says EV count: Bush 227 Kerry 210! It breaks it down.
Looking at this I think they have;

NH wrong so make it Bush 231 Kerry 206
NM will go Kerry for a +10 Bush 231 Kerry 216
PA & OH will repeat 2000 Bush 251 Kerry 237
MN, WI & IA repeat 2000 Bush 251 Kerry 264
Florida decides it.

The good news is a lot of young voters in FL are very motivated this time. The bad news is they still have chads. - LMAO!

Exactly.

And they're funny about it too! :D

But there's one thing I've seen MORE then anti-Bush, and it's pro-voting. Nearly every band I've seen for the past month or two has ALWAYS told us people watching and listening them to go out and vote. Best one:

"Don't forget to vote you guys, 'cause it's really important. And make sure your friends vote too! And if they don't want to, tell them how lame that is. You guys don't wanna be lame. Lame kids don't vote. Remember that. Yeah, that's our new slogan: 'Don't be lame, vote, dumbass!'"
I think ya gotta be real careful or the stoners might miss the commas and vote Bush on that slogan alone.

I think ya gotta be real careful or the stoners might miss the commas and vote Bush on that slogan alone.

LOL

I think ya gotta be real careful or the stoners might miss the commas and vote Bush on that slogan alone.

Roffle!

Looking at this I think they have;

NH wrong so make it Bush 231 Kerry 206
NM will go Kerry for a +10 Bush 231 Kerry 216
PA & OH will repeat 2000 Bush 251 Kerry 237
MN, WI & IA repeat 2000 Bush 251 Kerry 264
Florida decides it.

The good news is a lot of young voters in FL are very motivated this time. The bad news is they still have chads. - LMAO!
Actually, they don't have chads, and more's the pity. They have paperless electronic voting, which means no way to recount if there's a problem. And this is Florida--you know there's going to be a problem.

amazing hom many people will vote for a traitor* becuase he's not Bush. If the democrats haddn't picked such a slime as their man I might have voted for him.

He lied to the senate in 1971 claiming that all US troops (including himself, so if he's not lying then he's a war criminal) were commiting atrocites, which it has been fairly well proven never happened. thereby turning public opinion against the war. this is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, AKA treason. but the media swept it all under the rug and no one but a few of his fellows that served with Kerry in vietnam have the guts to address that issue.

I'm sorry, I just can't vote someone who's loyalty to this country is in doubt, I mean the Vietcong have openly admitted that without Kerry's testimony (and the strong anti-war sentiment it bred) they would have had to surrender.

I'm going to be seriously Ill the morning after if the headline tells me that Kerry won.

Oh yeah! I can see it all now.

Nixon and Kissinger were huddled in the oval office with the JCOS. "(expletive deleted) that (expletive deleted) Kerry! Here we were winning the war until he came along and caused millions of Americans at home to turn against their country's war and gave the Viet Cong the morale boost they needed to pull off another sweeping offensive from the Parrot's Beak. That (expletive deleted) cunning (expletive deleted)!"

Read the signature and get a clue!

Actually, they don't have chads, and more's the pity. They have paperless electronic voting, which means no way to recount if there's a problem. And this is Florida--you know there's going to be a problem.

Here we can agree on Incertonia! I do believe there will be a problem in Florida infact, I believe it has happened already.

Basil Fawlty wrote:



Basil, Basil, Basil. There was no fraud. There was legal electoral process as laid out in the Constitution. Anyone who submits otherwise is leading you astray.

So we can ignore:

1. Fraudulent "felon" lists which disenfranchized nearly 45,000 voter---mostly minorities---based upon data which was KNOWN by Secretary of State Harris (the Bush/Cheney state election chair during 2000, BTW) to be inaccurate.

2. Republican political operatives posing as "protesters" sent to disrupt the recount in Palm Beach County.

3. Identification and "warrant" checks on persons approaching (not actually inside) polling stations.

4. Signs posted on vehicles in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods providing a false date for the election.

5. Malfunction-prone, older tabulating voting machines placed in polling stations in lower-income areas and communities populated by elderly voters.

6. Secretary Harris' disallowance of the recount, but inclusion of absentee ballots from military troops which were post-marked AFTER the state law deadline.

And on, and on, and on......

Anyone who believes that Jeb Bush, Secretary Harris and the Bush election team did not set the stage to rig the 2000 election in Florida is living in a dream world.

On a side note, that map does confirm at least one thing my political science lecturer kept telling us. Those from the inland states are more Republican than the costal states, which are more democrats. Strange strange strange.

I would hazzard a guess that the reason why the inland states are more Rep than the coastal ones is because the inhabitants are inherently more conservative. I read a statistic once that most Americans live within 50 miles of where they were born. The majority of these ppl in the inland states certainly do. On the other hand, it's more likely that the coastal areas get lots more immigrants and ppl moving within America, looking for a change - which implies less conservative (hence more liberal) views.

So we can ignore:

1. Fraudulent "felon" lists which disenfranchized nearly 45,000 voter---mostly minorities---based upon data which was KNOWN by Secretary of State Harris (the Bush/Cheney state election chair during 2000, BTW) to be inaccurate.

2. Republican political operatives posing as "protesters" sent to disrupt the recount in Palm Beach County.

3. Identification and "warrant" checks on persons approaching (not actually inside) polling stations.

4. Signs posted on vehicles in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods providing a false date for the election.

5. Malfunction-prone, older tabulating voting machines placed in polling stations in lower-income areas and communities populated by elderly voters.

6. Secretary Harris' disallowance of the recount, but inclusion of absentee ballots from military troops which were post-marked AFTER the state law deadline.

And on, and on, and on......

Anyone who believes that Jeb Bush, Secretary Harris and the Bush election team did not set the stage to rig the 2000 election in Florida is living in a dream world.

When do I get my money from Germany for taking over Poland?

Dude, it's *over*. Get *over* it.

When do I get my money from Germany for taking over Poland?

Dude, it's *over*. Get *over* it.

They never will and it will only get louder when Kerry loses. There are already tens of thousands of lawyers preparing lawsuits to contest the election. This nonsense will go on for months after the election no matter how slim or wide the margin of victory is and then we'll hear about it for the next four years (mostly from people that didn't vote).

When Bush wins, I'll drink a toast to a hopefully productive future. If Kerry wins, I'm renewing my NRA membership and stocking up on ammo that he wants to make illegal.

And John Kerry stated that when the elections get challenged, he'll delcare victory.

And John Kerry stated that when the elections get challenged, he'll delcare victory.

Really!? Even if it's his people? Source?

Really!? Even if it's his people? Source?

I heard it somewhere. May not be on any major site yet. I will have to check

They never will and it will only get louder when Kerry loses. There are already tens of thousands of lawyers preparing lawsuits to contest the election. This nonsense will go on for months after the election no matter how slim or wide the margin of victory is and then we'll hear about it for the next four years (mostly from people that didn't vote).

When Bush wins, I'll drink a toast to a hopefully productive future. If Kerry wins, I'm renewing my NRA membership and stocking up on ammo that he wants to make illegal.
Both sides already have tens of thousands of lawyers on call for the post-election bickering, so don't act like the Republicans are innocent victims of the mean and nasty Democratic machine.

And you can keep on spouting that shit about Kerry and how he wants to ban guns--nobody's buying it.

I would hazzard a guess that the reason why the inland states are more Rep than the coastal ones is because the inhabitants are inherently more conservative. I read a statistic once that most Americans live within 50 miles of where they were born. The majority of these ppl in the inland states certainly do. On the other hand, it's more likely that the coastal areas get lots more immigrants and ppl moving within America, looking for a change - which implies less conservative (hence more liberal) views.

I'd say more that it's cities are liberal, rural areas are conservative. Most big cities end up around the coast, historically.

Both sides already have tens of thousands of lawyers on call for the post-election bickering, so don't act like the Republicans are innocent victims of the mean and nasty Democratic machine.

And you can keep on spouting that shit about Kerry and how he wants to ban guns--nobody's buying it.

I never said only the Dems. have lawyers. Read the sentence.

Are you honestly that blind? The BRADY CAMPAIGN endorses Kerry due to his anti-gun measures. Do you want a list of them? Here's a few:

Vote 28: bans most centerfire ammunition
S 1431: bans all semi-auto shotguns and detachable mag semi-auto rifles
Vote 325, Vote178: eliminate the Civilian Marksmanship program

Hell, I'll even make Gymoor happy and state the Kerry has not flip-flopped on this issue.

I never said only the Dems. have lawyers. Read the sentence.

Are you honestly that blind? The BRADY CAMPAIGN endorses Kerry due to his anti-gun measures. Do you want a list of them? Here's a few:

Vote 28: bans most centerfire ammunition
S 1431: bans all semi-auto shotguns and detachable mag semi-auto rifles
Vote 325, Vote178: eliminate the Civilian Marksmanship program

Hell, I'll even make Gymoor happy and state the Kerry has not flip-flopped on this issue.
Can you post links to the entire bill that was voted on? I'd like a little context--not that I don't trust you, but I don't trust you.

I never said only the Dems. have lawyers. Read the sentence.

Are you honestly that blind? The BRADY CAMPAIGN endorses Kerry due to his anti-gun measures. Do you want a list of them? Here's a few:

Vote 28: bans most centerfire ammunition
S 1431: bans all semi-auto shotguns and detachable mag semi-auto rifles
Vote 325, Vote178: eliminate the Civilian Marksmanship program

Hell, I'll even make Gymoor happy and state the Kerry has not flip-flopped on this issue.

Why do you want the terrorists to have semi-automatic shotguns?*

Yes, this is shameless propaganda. Both sides do it, and you should always excercize critical thinking. That is all.

Bout the Brady Bill, you do know the largest lobby group in support of continuing the ban was POLICE GROUPS.

Why do you think that is?

Why do you want the terrorists to have semi-automatic shotguns?*


Hey man ... someone has to have them.

Hey man ... someone has to have them.

They're awfully useful in Halo.

They're awfully useful in Halo.


*rofl*

Why do you want the terrorists to have semi-automatic shotguns?*

How would any gun ban prevent a terrorist from getting any gun they wanted? The ban on murder doesnt appear to be bothering them much.

How would any gun ban prevent a terrorist from getting any gun they wanted? The ban on murder doesnt appear to be bothering them much.

Nor are we considering lifting the ban on murder. So what's your point?

Nor are we considering lifting the ban on murder. So what's your point?


My point is that any ban is only going to affect the people who are going to do good things with the banned item. It isnt going to stop the people who want to do bad things with them.

Murder has no good things. Semi auto shotguns can be used to do good things.

Murder has no good things. Semi auto shotguns can be used to do good things.
Like murder?

Bout the Brady Bill, you do know the largest lobby group in support of continuing the ban was POLICE GROUPS.

Why do you think that is?

don't you love how people just steamrolled right over this?

**coughs**

Like murder?

like justifiable homocide.

I think the point he is trying to make about The Brady Bill is this:

Only people trying to buy guns legally have to wait two weeks.

Ramon The Drug Dealer doesn't have to wait two weeks to get a gun from Ivan The Arms Dealer.

SInce the vast majority of gun-related violence is committed with illegally owned guns, the Brady Bill is what I call, a 'feel good bill'. It doesn't actually fix a damn thing.

I think the point he is trying to make about The Brady Bill is this:

Only people trying to buy guns legally have to wait two weeks.

Ramon The Drug Dealer doesn't have to wait two weeks to get a gun from Ivan The Arms Dealer.

SInce the vast majority of gun-related violence is committed with illegally owned guns, the Brady Bill is what I call, a 'feel good bill'. It doesn't actually fix a damn thing.

Actually, the gross majority of gun violence is committed by people who own a gun legally and who use it on someone they know.

Actually, the gross majority of gun violence is committed by people who own a gun legally and who use it on someone they know.

your statement only hold true under the following circumstances

1) suicide is counts for more than half of all gun violance
2) for every county in the USA(except for 1 in chicago) the FBI counts the following things as by someone they know.
a) drug dealers killing competing drug dealers
b) cab drivers killed by their passengers
c) prostitutes killed by clients (or vice versa)
d) gang members killed by rival gang members

The list goes on.

When you subtract all of these "aquantances" the number falls down to 17%

edit: I am unsure how the word "legally" factors into this. I will look it up though.

I think the point he is trying to make about The Brady Bill is this:

Only people trying to buy guns legally have to wait two weeks.

Ramon The Drug Dealer doesn't have to wait two weeks to get a gun from Ivan The Arms Dealer.

SInce the vast majority of gun-related violence is committed with illegally owned guns, the Brady Bill is what I call, a 'feel good bill'. It doesn't actually fix a damn thing.


This is both right and wrong. Most gun crime is committed with illegally owned weapons or weapons that are already illegal. At the same time, most illegally owned weapons were purchased legally at some point.

In the South and the Middle Atlantic states, a lot of these guns are bought *legally* at gunshows in semi-rural areas in bulk through the gunshow loopholes (which allow you to buy your guns at a show and then register them when you get home) for 'collectors'. They are then sold individually illegally in a big city like Baltimore or DC. Weapon bought legally, then sold illegally.

In large urban areas (Los Angeles and New York City are good examples) guns are often bought legally and then pawned, also legally. Pawnshop owners then sell those firearms cheap and dirty and, because they are selling so low, don't bother with the necessary paperwork. Gun bought legally, pawned legally, sold under the table without proper documentation.

In other words, legal weapons are often disposed of irresponsibly by their legal owners and end up in illegal hands. Sometimes (and this is very popular in the South as well) the legal owners of guns sell their guns to their buddies and report them stolen. Their buddies then sell them for even more money to someone who wants to do something specific with a gun.

Then comes legitimately stolen weapons. Guns are stolen everyday, going from the hands of law abiding citizens to criminals. So, while I am not in favor of many gun control measures and have my own ideas about how to solve the problem, the fact is that most illegally purchased guns were sold legally and aboveboard at some point before their illegal sale. Gun control would therefore help to control the flow of legal guns into the illegal market. This might not solve the problem entirely (which is why I oppose it) but it might make a significant difference.

This is not a statement in favor of gun control, this is the argument in its favor.

This is both right and wrong. Most gun crime is committed with illegally owned weapons or weapons that are already illegal. At the same time, most illegally owned weapons were purchased legally at some point.

In the South and the Middle Atlantic states, a lot of these guns are bought *legally* at gunshows in semi-rural areas in bulk through the gunshow loopholes (which allow you to buy your guns at a show and then register them when you get home) for 'collectors'. They are then sold individually illegally in a big city like Baltimore or DC. Weapon bought legally, then sold illegally.

In large urban areas (Los Angeles and New York City are good examples) guns are often bought legally and then pawned, also legally. Pawnshop owners then sell those firearms cheap and dirty and, because they are selling so low, don't bother with the necessary paperwork. Gun bought legally, pawned legally, sold under the table without proper documentation.

In other words, legal weapons are often disposed of irresponsibly by their legal owners and end up in illegal hands. Sometimes (and this is very popular in the South as well) the legal owners of guns sell their guns to their buddies and report them stolen. Their buddies then sell them for even more money to someone who wants to do something specific with a gun.

Then comes legitimately stolen weapons. Guns are stolen everyday, going from the hands of law abiding citizens to criminals. So, while I am not in favor of many gun control measures and have my own ideas about how to solve the problem, the fact is that most illegally purchased guns were sold legally and aboveboard at some point before their illegal sale. Gun control would therefore help to control the flow of legal guns into the illegal market. This might not solve the problem entirely (which is why I oppose it) but it might make a significant difference.

This is not a statement in favor of gun control, this is the argument in its favor.

Couple of points. There is no real gun show "loophole" people who do not make their living from selling guns(under a certain amount of gun sales / year) are allowed to sell their guns to another person without a background check. Licensed dealers are required to do a background check no matter where they sell their guns(gunshows included).

straw purchasers are the "legal" owners who are irresponsibly selling their guns. They have clean records and go and buy a gun with the specific intent of reselling that gun to someone who would not pass a background check. A "straw" purchase is illegal by the way so it isnt really a legal gun to begin with.

271-257 now for Kerry!

He just lost 20 Electoral Votes

271-257 now for Kerry!

He just lost 20 Electoral Votes

Good.

I didn't even mention the Brady Bill, I said the Brady Campaign, formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.

Here's that link: http://www.handguncontrol.org/

They support Kerry 100%. Both they and the NRA agree on this issue.

For a laugh, check this out. http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/

I agree. Bush will have to have a 4% margin or more on the last poll to even break even. Undecideds generally break 3-1 for the challenger, and the influx of new voters (who never appear in polls) are decidedly Kerry-leaning.

Much as I would like to live in this world with you. Undecideds break 2-1 for the challenger, not 3-1 and in some of the battleground states, there aren't enough undecideds to ensure Kerry the victories you are assuming he has. I think Kerry has a good shot of winning, and hope he does, but it ain't over yet.

He lied to the senate in 1971 claiming that all US troops (including himself, so if he's not lying then he's a war criminal) were commiting atrocites, which it has been fairly well proven never happened. thereby turning public opinion against the war. this is considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, AKA treason. but the media swept it all under the rug and no one but a few of his fellows that served with Kerry in vietnam have the guts to address that issue.


I can't sugarcoat this any longer. I've actually read his testimony before the senate. You are a liar. A lying liar who loves to lie. Either that or you are an ignorant jackass who is too stupid to check what other liars tell you before you regurgitate the filth that comes out of their mouths.

I can't sugarcoat this any longer. I've actually read his testimony before the senate. You are a liar. A lying liar who loves to lie. Either that or you are an ignorant jackass who is too stupid to check what other liars tell you before you regurgitate the filth that comes out of their mouths.

Care to post his senate testimony?

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

There is a transcript found from a Google on 'John Kerry Senate Testimony War Crimes'.

I would like to point out the quote:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

I which nowhere does he say that 'every soldier' commited War Crimes. Neither does he ever say that he personally committed/witnessed them, or imply that the soldiers involved were necessarily guilty. He says that a veterans group had an investigation. At that investigation 150 men testified to personally comitting/witnessing things they fealt were warcrimes, and that some of these things were systematic and not isolated incidents.

Another to the same thing...though without any editing at all (I didn't realize the above link had edited out a couple paragraphs until after I rechecked it.)

http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/jkerrytestimony.asp

I can't sugarcoat this any longer. I've actually read his testimony before the senate. You are a liar. A lying liar who loves to lie. Either that or you are an ignorant jackass who is too stupid to check what other liars tell you before you regurgitate the filth that comes out of their mouths.

It wasn't in the Senate. It was on MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971:

(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End audiotape)

http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

One: The person I called a liar explicitly stated that he said those things during a Senate testimony. He in fact, did not.

Two: Every explanation I have for those words you linked to sounds like apologism, even though it ain't. I would suggest reading the entire article, and trying to take those words in context with the rest of that interview and the view of the times it was said in though. He really worded that poorly (and later said that it was said in Anger and frustration of all the pressure being put on him at the time). I believe I know what he was trying to say, but what he actually said was pretty bad.

Looking at this I think they have;

NH wrong so make it Bush 231 Kerry 206
NM will go Kerry for a +10 Bush 231 Kerry 216
PA & OH will repeat 2000 Bush 251 Kerry 237
MN, WI & IA repeat 2000 Bush 251 Kerry 264
Florida decides it.

The good news is a lot of young voters in FL are very motivated this time. The bad news is they still have chads. - LMAO!

If Bush carries all the strong and leaning states he has 227, and likewise for Kerry gives him 206. My take is this:

Florida and Wisconsin go for Bush giving him 262
Kerry takes PA, NM, NH, IA, MN giving him 253
Ohio, with 20 votes, decides it. At this point, I'd say Kerry has the better chance there. Either way, reeeally close. But alot could happen in two weeks though.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct21-margins.html

67% lead in D.C??? That's insane. A 67% vote for one candidate is a huge margin, but this much of a lead? And in D.C., right between the northern and southern states no less?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct21-margins.html

67% lead in D.C??? That's insane. A 67% vote for one candidate is a huge margin, but this much of a lead? And in D.C., right between the northern and southern states no less?

DC is a *very* Democratic town, mostly buoyed by the black vote. Heck, it's the only place Mondale won in 84' except his home state!

http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct21-margins.html

67% lead in D.C??? That's insane. A 67% vote for one candidate is a huge margin, but this much of a lead? And in D.C., right between the northern and southern states no less?
Uh, no it isn't. DC is primarily black and poor. Democratic stronghold.

Hey, I thought the point of art was to express yourself. I don't think any of them are trying to tell others how to vote, but they've certainly got a right to express their own points and opinions. Why is it okay for a celeb to tell you what cell-phone to buy and not okay for a celeb to express themselves in music? Remember Bob Dylan? The Beatles? John Lennon (solo)? They didn't do so badly expressing that they didn't like the government, did they?

Listen, if an artist wants to talk politics in an interview, or write a book, or stump for a candidate, that's cool and their right.
When they give a 15 minute monologue at a concert I (or anyone) PAYS FOR to hear their MUSIC, that's WRONG.

Yes, I remember all of them. And I don't recall *any* of them using their concerts to tell people how to vote. :)

Listen, if an artist wants to talk politics in an interview, or write a book, or stump for a candidate, that's cool and their right.
When they give a 15 minute monologue at a concert I (or anyone) PAYS FOR to hear their MUSIC, that's WRONG.

Yes, I remember all of them. And I don't recall *any* of them using their concerts to tell people how to vote. :)
You can always ask for your money back--or you can walk out. Their right to speak their minds trumps your right to listen to their music.

Listen, if an artist wants to talk politics in an interview, or write a book, or stump for a candidate, that's cool and their right.
When they give a 15 minute monologue at a concert I (or anyone) PAYS FOR to hear their MUSIC, that's WRONG.

Yes, I remember all of them. And I don't recall *any* of them using their concerts to tell people how to vote. :)
Don't go.

You can always ask for your money back--or you can walk out. Their right to speak their minds trumps your right to listen to their music.

That's not the point. I shouldn't *have* to. Back in the day, artists and celebrities had a certain level of class and decorum. You never saw Journey stopping a show to plug Mondale!

They are *not* speaking their minds, they are using their celebrity to try to influence things their way.

For example, if you're fine with artists doing this, you MUST be fine with abortion protestors blocking centers. Or with the Swift Boat Vets?

Me? I'm against ALL of these things. Your right to your rights do NOT preclude my right to mine.

Don't go.

Don't go to a concert again, ever? Are you sane? How on Earth is that an option?

That's not the point. I shouldn't *have* to. Back in the day, artists and celebrities had a certain level of class and decorum. You never saw Journey stopping a show to plug Mondale!

They are *not* speaking their minds, they are using their celebrity to try to influence things their way.

For example, if you're fine with artists doing this, you MUST be fine with abortion protestors blocking centers. Or with the Swift Boat Vets?

Me? I'm against ALL of these things. Your right to your rights do NOT preclude my right to mine.
Well, it's not the same. When you go to a concert, you pay money with the full knowledge that the person on that stage has a platform to say whatever he or she wishes. You have ceded your right to not be offended by purchasing the ticket. But when we're talking about, say, abortion protestors blocking access, we have a situation where a group is impeding access to private property. They can protest all they want on public property, but they can't impede access to private property. As for the Swift Vets, they have the right to say whatever they like--I never argued that they should be kept from airing ads--but the stations that air those ads have a responsibility to make sure that the ads aren't libelous.

Don't go to a concert again, ever? Are you sane? How on Earth is that an option?
The one's that preach, sure. Don't support them.

Since there is so much importance placed on these battleground states it seems suprising that the candidates come from Mass. North Carolina, Texas, Wyoming of which 0 are batleground states. I think the elecoral college is basically fair just some rules like winner takes all I disapprove of. On to the election though, I think it will be a close win for Kerry, close win for Bush or landslide for Bush.

Since there is so much importance placed on these battleground states it seems suprising that the candidates come from Mass. North Carolina, Texas, Wyoming of which 0 are batleground states. I think the elecoral college is basically fair just some rules like winner takes all I disapprove of. On to the election though, I think it will be a close win for Kerry, close win for Bush or landslide for Bush.
Well, North Carolina is still technically a battleground state, since Kerry's just barely inside the margin of error, but it's basically being ignored now because there are other states that are either closer or are bigger prizes.

Listen, if an artist wants to talk politics in an interview, or write a book, or stump for a candidate, that's cool and their right.
When they give a 15 minute monologue at a concert I (or anyone) PAYS FOR to hear their MUSIC, that's WRONG.

Yes, I remember all of them. And I don't recall *any* of them using their concerts to tell people how to vote. :)

Hmmm, methinks you haven't listened to any Vietnam Era music.

Don't go to a concert again, ever? Are you sane? How on Earth is that an option?

I haven't been to one in almost 5 years and don't feel neglected in any way. For the same reason that if you don't like what's on tv you should change the channel, if you don't like some entertainers performance, don't go, don't buy their records, and don't associate with them. They have a right to say whatever they want, their rights stop only if they are trying to force you to listen.

Well, North Carolina is still technically a battleground state, since Kerry's just barely inside the margin of error, but it's basically being ignored now because there are other states that are either closer or are bigger prizes.
North Carolina is about as competitive as Delaware.

In any case, new polls, new polls. Looking good for Kerry.

North Carolina is about as competitive as Delaware.

In any case, new polls, new polls. Looking good for Kerry.

Actually no!

On www.realclearpolitics.com he has lost the states of MN and NH! they are now back into the tossup column. Thus Bush is now up 227 to 189

and on www.electoral-vote.com Bush is up 271 to 257

The one's that preach, sure. Don't support them.

How do you *know*? I had no idea Springsteen was going to pull that bullsh*t.

Hmmm, methinks you haven't listened to any Vietnam Era music.

Like I said. MUSIC! I *know* what "Eve of Destruction" is about. I can choose to go to a Barry McGuire concert or not by that.

Even Jim Morrison, during his heavily medicated oratories, just sat and TALKED about politics.

But when an artist starts stumping for a candidate at a show *WITH NO NOTICE, NOT EVEN ON HIS WEBSITE*, that's wrong. I came to the show expecting to be entertained and have an enjoyable evening out, not to listen to some idiotic rant just because he's famous.

I haven't been to one in almost 5 years and don't feel neglected in any way. For the same reason that if you don't like what's on tv you should change the channel, if you don't like some entertainers performance, don't go, don't buy their records, and don't associate with them. They have a right to say whatever they want, their rights stop only if they are trying to force you to listen.

I agree that they have the right to say whatever they want, just *not* at a concert. It's a matter of free speach vs. business propostion. I PAID to see them, they should PERFORM not PREACH. :(

I agree that they have the right to say whatever they want, just *not* at a concert. It's a matter of free speach vs. business propostion. I PAID to see them, they should PERFORM not PREACH. :(
Ask for a refund or stop going to new ones. The musicians have the right to speak at their concerts. You have the right to stop going.

Everything is possible in the US, just the system sucks, better have a popular vote because it represents the election better.


Just a few minutes of research would tell you that is just stupid.

I agree that they have the right to say whatever they want, just *not* at a concert. It's a matter of free speach vs. business propostion. I PAID to see them, they should PERFORM not PREACH. :(

I don't like listening to people preach either. It's really simple. I don't go to places where I think people will preach at me. And I certainly as all hell don't pay money for the priveledge. They have every right to say and do what they want at a concert, if you aren't satisfied, you have every right to demand your money back.

Just a few minutes of research would tell you that is just stupid.

Euh..., I guess you are refering to your own (minority) opinion.
Just a small reading skill might help you.

How do you *know*? I had no idea Springsteen was going to pull that bullsh*t.
Wait wait wait. You're talking about Springsteen? Jesus Christ, man, it's been all over the news that Springsteen has become more of a political activist this year during this election. Sorry--you just lost your right to bitch about it if we're talking about Springsteen.

Euh..., I guess you are refering to your own (minority) opinion.
Actually, the electoral college prevents the large cities from running roughshod over the rural and smaller areas of the country.

Just a small reading skill might help you.
:D :D

Its now Kerry 253, Bush 254. My relatives in Florida say that it will go Bush strongly (giving him 281 and the win). California is too close to call, or say the twenty or so people I know in CA.

Its now Kerry 253, Bush 254. My relatives in Florida say that it will go Bush strongly (giving him 281 and the win). California is too close to call, or say the twenty or so people I know in CA.
Florida is a tossup, California is solid Kerry, trust me.

Actually, the electoral college prevents the large cities from running roughshod over the rural and smaller areas of the country.
Actually, the electoral college lets a few midwestern states and Florida run roughshod over the whole damn rest of the country. Does your vote count? Mine doesn't.

I'm predicting that Kerry will win the E.C. and Bush will win the popular vote. I hope it happens, what sweet justice it will be. ;)

Actually no!

On www.realclearpolitics.com he has lost the states of MN and NH! they are now back into the tossup column. Thus Bush is now up 227 to 189

and on www.electoral-vote.com Bush is up 271 to 257
I'm not too sure about realclearpolitics methods, but in any case, one new close poll is not enough to throw out dozens of polls within the past week that put Kerry safely ahead in both Minnesota and New Hampshire.

And recent polls have turned a safe Bush lead in Ohio into a possible Kerry lead. Hard to tell, as always. But when freaking Gallup puts Kerry ahead 6%...

electoral-vote.com has Hawaii now as a tossup. That's crazy, since it's been in the "Strong Kerry" category the whole time. Must be an outlier.

electoral-vote.com has Hawaii now as a tossup. That's crazy, since it's been in the "Strong Kerry" category the whole time. Must be an outlier.
I'm from Hawaii, and the newspaper that did this "survey" is the weak competition to the dominant newspaper in the state. If Hawaii was polled as often as Florida by the major polling firms, you'd probably average around a 10% lead for Kerry. Trust me, the newspaper fudged this poll. Even Strategic Vision wouldn't find Hawaii close. I'd consider Maryland a tossup before Hawaii a tossup (remember that poll that had MD tied?). In any case, I still believe there are only 4 states that could go either way, barring some huge event: Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

Hawaii will never go for Bush.

Actually, the electoral college lets a few midwestern states and Florida run roughshod over the whole damn rest of the country. Does your vote count? Mine doesn't.

The big states make up for it by having so much more representation in the house. The little states only protection is by the person with a veto, not someone who creates the legistlation.

Or give California to Bush, they have a republican govner "Aaarnhold", or am I wrong about that possibility (I am not a US'er)? In some EU countries, it is onlmy the popular vote that counts (BENELUX, Germany, Spain, Italy) in other they have a system in wich each region sends a numbre of pesrons to the parliament or with presidentials, they have to 50% majority, if not, the 2 strongest candidates have a second term (France) (UK).

Everything is possible in the US, just the system sucks, better have a popular vote because it represents the election better.

Can California be Rep? Your opinion as a American? Tought that it was Rep under Reagan to, isn't it?
The reason Arnold won was because of starpower alone, nothing else. California is unlikely to become a red state anytime soon.
And btw, not only did Reagan come from California, but Reagan was a wildly popular president. In both his elections, he won every state except Minnesota.
What I really find interesting, btw, is that a traditional democratic stronghold, Hawai'i, is beginning to show signs of defection, as it is a statistically tied state.

The reason Arnold won was because of starpower alone, nothing else. California is unlikely to become a red state anytime soon.
And btw, not only did Reagan come from California, but Reagan was a wildly popular president. In both his elections, he won every state except Minnesota.
What I really find interesting, btw, is that a traditional democratic stronghold, Hawai'i, is beginning to show signs of defection, as it is a statistically tied state.
Actually, Reagan lost Hawaii, Minnesota, Maryland, Georgia, Maryland, DC, and West Virginia to Carter in 1980. In 88 he only lost Minnesota and DC.

And trust me, Hawaii is NOT statistically tied. The only poll done in that state was done by a second-rate tabloidish sensationalist newspaper.

I'm predicting that Kerry will win the E.C. and Bush will win the popular vote. I hope it happens, what sweet justice it will be. ;)

It would be but from what I'm seeing right now, Bush is winning in the national polls (albeit within most people's MoE) AND the electoral vote(EV: 285 to 247 according to electoral-vote.com)

It would be but from what I'm seeing right now, Bush is winning in the national polls (albeit within most people's MoE) AND the electoral vote(EV: 285 to 247 according to electoral-vote.com)
When I checked Electoral-vote.com this morning I thought it was a site error or something. Zogby, of all polls putting Bush ahead 5% in New Mexico? After his 10% lead just a week ago?! And suddenly Colorado is Kerry's by 4%?! After the same Zogby company found Bush ahead and nearly every other poll has Bush ahead by safe margins?! They are screwing with us. I don't know what to think.

Actually, Reagan lost Hawaii, Minnesota, Maryland, Georgia, Maryland, DC, and West Virginia to Carter in 1980. In 88 he only lost Minnesota and DC.

This is true.

And trust me, Hawaii is NOT statistically tied. The only poll done in that state was done by a second-rate tabloidish sensationalist newspaper.

Also somewhat true. However, according to both realclearpolitics and electoral-vote.com, HI is in the red. On realclearpolitics, the RCP avg is 0.9% in favor of Bush and that is an average of all the polls and on electoral-vote.com, he has a 1 percentage point lead. I'm not saying HI will go Bush! I'm placing bets it doesn't but this is what the numbers are saying.

When I checked Electoral-vote.com this morning I thought it was a site error or something. Zogby, of all polls putting Bush ahead 5% in New Mexico? After his 10% lead just a week ago?! And suddenly Colorado is Kerry's by 4%?! After the same Zogby company found Bush ahead and nearly every other poll has Bush ahead by safe margins?! They are screwing with us. I don't know what to think.

Hey, I found this to be just as surprising. I'm not believing what they are saying right now. That is why I checked out www.realclearpolitics.com They average all the polls and I think this is the best way to do it personally speaking.

I don't think Kerry will win CO just like I don't think Bush will win HI! That is why I go to the other source I quoted. I wanted to get a second opinion though they have Bush up .9 % in HI, they still have it in the leaning Kerry Column.

Also somewhat true. However, according to both realclearpolitics and electoral-vote.com, HI is in the red. On realclearpolitics, the RCP avg is 0.9% in favor of Bush and that is an average of all the polls and on electoral-vote.com, he has a 1 percentage point lead. I'm not saying HI will go Bush! I'm placing bets it doesn't but this is what the numbers are saying.
The "numbers" are all of one poll. No one thought it worthwhile to poll my former home state because we all know where it's going. Suddenly the Star-Bulletin decides they're gonna make some news cause they're getting their asses kicked by the Honolulu Advertiser. If ANY respectable polling agency (hell, even Strategic Vision) came down and did a poll, you would see anywhere between a 5 and 15% Kerry lead.

Actually, Reagan lost Hawaii, Minnesota, Maryland, Georgia, Maryland, DC, and West Virginia to Carter in 1980. In 88 he only lost Minnesota and DC.
1984 actually, not 1988.

The "numbers" are all of one poll. No one thought it worthwhile to poll my former home state because we all know where it's going. Suddenly the Star-Bulletin decides they're gonna make some news cause they're getting their asses kicked by the Honolulu Advertiser. If ANY respectable polling agency (hell, even Strategic Vision) came down and did a poll, you would see anywhere between a 5 and 15% Kerry lead.

Hey I'm not going to argue with you. I believe Kerry will win Hawaii and win it handly. I found that poll to be suspect the moment I saw Hawaii in the Bush Column.

Euh..., I guess you are refering to your own (minority) opinion.
Just a small reading skill might help you.
Let's leave this issue to the Americans.

I'm predicting that Kerry will win the E.C. and Bush will win the popular vote. I hope it happens, what sweet justice it will be. ;)
That would be funny, but I hope it doesn't happen. I hope that whichever candidate wins, wins decisively with the popular vote (absolute majority I hope) and wins the electoral vote. It will avoid all the legal wrangling of 2000 if one candidate wins decisively. I hope it's Kerry, of course. :)

That would be funny, but I hope it doesn't happen. I hope that whichever candidate wins, wins decisively with the popular vote (absolute majority I hope) and wins the electoral vote. It will avoid all the legal wrangling of 2000 if one candidate wins decisively. I hope it's Kerry, of course. :)

As much as you think it will prevent it if a candidate wins decisively, there WILL be legal wrangling no matter what happens.

If Kerry does win, look for the majority of the lawsuits to be dropped. If Bush wins, look for everything to be thrown into court.

Since I don't know where to post this, I'll post this link here.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102604B.html

It is regarding Truman vs. Dewey and Bush vs Kerry

The resemblence of the two campaigns and what was happening are strikingly similar.

Man http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has Bush leading with 285 EC, and Kerry with 247. God I hope they are not right. Comon Kerry!

Man http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has Bush leading with 285 EC, and Kerry with 247. God I hope they are not right. Comon Kerry!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_EC.html

Real Clear Politics has Bush up 234 to 228 with 76 toss up votes.

The polls have gone nuts recently. New Mexico's gone from a strong lead to Kerry to a weak lead for Bush. I don't think a swing of 10% in a couple of days is realistic.
I won't be taking any notice of them until they come into line again.

The polls have gone nuts recently. New Mexico's gone from a strong lead to Kerry to a weak lead for Bush. I don't think a swing of 10% in a couple of days is realistic.
I won't be taking any notice of them until they come into line again.

and Hawaii is for Bush too! That I don't believe.

and Hawaii is for Bush too! That I don't believe.

Yeah, considering it was 55% for Gore to Bush's 37.5% in 2000.

Yeah, considering it was 55% for Gore to Bush's 37.5% in 2000.

I know that is why I'm questioning Hawaii

All Kerry needs to do is hold all the states he has now, and get OH and he will win the Election! Comon Ohio, swing to Kerry!

All Kerry needs to do is hold all the states he has now, and get OH and he will win the Election! Comon Ohio, swing to Kerry!

and it'll be nagated if Bush Takes Florida which has more electoral votes than Ohio

and Hawaii is for Bush too! That I don't believe.
Nobody bothers to poll Hawaii, that's how safe Kerry it is. Then one second-rate tabloid newspaper decides it wants to stir up some news. If any of the major pollsters came to Hawaii, you should find that comfortable 10% lead. Having grown up there, I can say there is a huge Democrat network that goes right back to the statehood movement. The only time Hawaii has gone Republican was in 84, but hell even Rhode Island, New York and all the rest did that year.

The polls have gone nuts recently. New Mexico's gone from a strong lead to Kerry to a weak lead for Bush. I don't think a swing of 10% in a couple of days is realistic.
I won't be taking any notice of them until they come into line again.
Zogby has gone nuts. In New Mexico, in just 7 days it has swung 18%. I read that these latest Zogby polls are telephone polls, which might explain it, because Zogby has always leaned Kerry.

But there is better news for Kerry. Bush's lead in both Ohio and Florida are shrinking to nothing. And I'm calling any tossup state for Kerry just with all the undecided votes which break heavily for the challenger.

As well, it looks like Kerry is easily holding New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, all states Republicans insist are still competitive.

And I'm calling New Mexico for Kerry, 8% Bush lead be damned.

and it'll be nagated if Bush Takes Florida which has more electoral votes than Ohio
If Kerry can hold either Iowa or Wisconsin, then taking either Ohio or Florida gives him the win. Without Iowa or Wisconsin, he must take Florida.

As long as Bush pulls either Florida ohio or Penn he will be a winner. He has been gaining ground in those typically democrat states like wisconsin and Iowa. If the election would be today and Bush won every state he is up in minus ohio and florida, he would only need to one of those states. To get both would just be an over kill in electoral votes. Also about new voters... This is my first presidential election. I am voting for Bush! Being an ohio native in a very liberal town I know more new voters that are voting for Bush then Kerry. Tough luck guys maybe Hillary can pull through for you in 2008! Also any Columbus people out here? Tomorrow 10/27/04 look for the big john kerry float in your neighborhood. He is made entirely out of waffle looking material making sure all you liberals remember that voting day for liberals is on the 3rd of November!

Thankz feel free to email me at bgsu362dmb@yahoo.com

As long as Bush pulls either Florida ohio or Penn he will be a winner. He has been gaining ground in those typically democrat states like wisconsin and Iowa. If the election would be today and Bush won every state he is up in minus ohio and florida, he would only need to one of those states. To get both would just be an over kill in electoral votes. Also about new voters... This is my first presidential election. I am voting for Bush! Being an ohio native in a very liberal town I know more new voters that are voting for Bush then Kerry. Tough luck guys maybe Hillary can pull through for you in 2008! Also any Columbus people out here? Tomorrow 10/27/04 look for the big john kerry float in your neighborhood. He is made entirely out of waffle looking material making sure all you liberals remember that voting day for liberals is on the 3rd of November![/email]
Bush has no chance in Pennsylvania. I gaurantee it.

Anyhow, if Kerry takes Florida, Bush would need more than just Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa to win.

And new voters nationwide favor Kerry by huge margins.

Although I would give my left testicle to see Hillary Clinton become president. Not cause she's my first choice. Just because conservatives hate her so much. It would be hilarious.

Anyhow, if Kerry takes Florida, Bush would need more than just Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa to win.
No he dosen't. Bush just needs to deny Kerry a majority of the votes, Kerry needs to get a majority of the votes. If you assume Kerry gets Colorado, you're right, but give Colorado to Bush and Hawa'ii to Kerry, and Kerry ends up at 269 with Florida but without Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

As well, it looks like Kerry is easily holding New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, all states Republicans insist are still competitive.

Yes and no. New Hampshire, Michigan, and Oregon aren't really that competitive. Pennsylvania is closer to copmetitive, but its been slightly Kerry for a while. Minnesota, on the other hand, was found to be leaning Bush by the previous two polls before Zogby (whose polls you admit look a bit quirky) comes out with a 7% swing in Kerry's favor.

The US Adolf seems to lose in last polls, Kerry 298, W Adolf:238

No he dosen't. Bush just needs to deny Kerry a majority of the votes, Kerry needs to get a majority of the votes. If you assume Kerry gets Colorado, you're right, but give Colorado to Bush and Hawa'ii to Kerry, and Kerry ends up at 269 with Florida but without Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
You are correct, assuming Bush also takes New Mexico. This would produce a 269-269 tie (which Bush in effect wins). However, the odds of Bush taking all four are awfully slim at this point, especially in Iowa and Wisconsin which have pulled towards Kerry in recent days.

Yes and no. New Hampshire, Michigan, and Oregon aren't really that competitive. Pennsylvania is closer to copmetitive, but its been slightly Kerry for a while. Minnesota, on the other hand, was found to be leaning Bush by the previous two polls before Zogby (whose polls you admit look a bit quirky) comes out with a 7% swing in Kerry's favor.
You are correct about Minnesota. I was going on somewhat of a feeling on the polling trends in Minnesota. But in recent days, Kerry has opened a huge lead there.

This election has boiled down to Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico.

The polls have gone nuts recently. New Mexico's gone from a strong lead to Kerry to a weak lead for Bush. I don't think a swing of 10% in a couple of days is realistic.
I won't be taking any notice of them until they come into line again.
Remember Dean?

All the Red and Blue states here: http://www.electoral-vote.com/

On a side note, that map does confirm at least one thing my political science lecturer kept telling us. Those from the inland states are more Republican than the costal states, which are more democrats. Strange strange strange.

I have a problem with the dates that figure on some states when you scroll over them, some pols are to old.

Any way, I hope they are correct, will be best for the US and the world.
Nice to know that states like Nebraska will devide the electoral vote.

YOU LOSE! Thanks for playing! ahahahahah

YOU LOSE! Thanks for playing! ahahahahah

Sorry, kiddo, I don't since I don't live in your banana bibble republic but in a EU democracy. I only feel compassion for your devided nation, must be hell there, being rulled by leaders that hear voices inside their head :eek: :eek: :eek: .

BTW, it is great news for Europe since a Kerry win would only weaken EU and now we will be obliged to think about a millitary conflict with the crazy state on the other side of the Atlantic :)

Republicans are ignorant, uneducated people. They vote for Bush, for christ sake! Even after these last 4 years!! :headbang:

Bush entered their minds with the cheap publicity. America is a majority of fools.

Even New York wants Kerry!! this is ridiculous

The numbers for this thread were almost right! Just got the candidates wrong...

Bush (R) 51% EV 274
Kerry (D) 48% EV 238
Nader (I) 0% EV 0

Republicans are ignorant, uneducated people. They vote for Bush, for christ sake! Even after these last 4 years!! :headbang:

Bush entered their minds with the cheap publicity. America is a majority of fools.

Even New York wants Kerry!! this is ridiculous

Thank you for that enlighted, learned opinion!