NationStates Jolt Archive

Kerry: California, Connecticut, Deleware, DC, Hawaii, Illinoi, Iowa, Marylan, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minesotta, New Hampshire, new Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington. (basically follows predictions, gets Ohio, loses wisconsin and New Mexico).

And just to make things really fun, the Democrats regain control of the senate.

Electoral vote is 269 to 269. By the Constitution, the House (Republican controlled) chooses among the three highest winners (wonder who they'd pick), and the Senate picks the VP (now Democratically controlled, who are they going to pick).

We now have a Bush/Edwards whitehouse with a split congress, following an election in which NOONE won.

What do people think would happen then?

New Mexico will not go for Bush... I have sent in an absentee ballot doing my part in that :p

OK, but aside from that, I can totally see that happening... and what a nightmare... if we didn't abolish the electoral college in that situation, our heads are well and truly stuck up our proverbial... butts.

last time I checked it takes more than one person to swing a state...

Watch a true Bipartisian White House and Government at work.... or should that be watch the government stall?

Wait and see what 2008 brings.

Oh and you mentioned Hawaii with the Dems. while I'll normally agree with you, Hawaii is a battleground state now and I laugh at the Democrates response.

The Reps send VP Chaney...
The Dems send...
John Kerry's eldest Daughter and Gore

I think the Dems are not taking our votes seriously...

to add emphasis:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New%20Mexico_Fall%202004.htm

unless new mexico only has ten voters, then, your one vote won't change that all that much.

last time I checked it takes more than one person to swing a state...Yeah, but my vote counts for a lot. The state's small, and very iffy, and besides, all I said was, "doing my part", not "carrying the state by my very own self".

to add emphasis:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New%20Mexico_Fall%202004.htm

unless new mexico only has ten voters, then, your one vote won't change that all that much. http://americanresearchgroup.com/nm/ Your point? Polls mean almost nothing these days.

And just to make things really fun, the Democrats regain control of the senate.


Wouldn't make a difference, since the House would pick the President. Still, look forward to the GOP adding 1-4 seats to their Senate lead.. :cool:
That's one prediction I certainly don't mind making.

At that point, maybe everyone will see that this whole "direct democracy" thing isn't all its cracked up to be. Especially when the average citizen isn't particularly bright.

At that point, maybe everyone will see that this whole "direct democracy" thing isn't all its cracked up to be. Especially when the average citizen isn't particularly bright.
But this system isn't a very good direct democracy, under a direct democracy, a scenario like this just wouldn't happen.

Watch a true Bipartisian White House and Government at work.... or should that be watch the government stall?

Wait and see what 2008 brings.

Oh and you mentioned Hawaii with the Dems. while I'll normally agree with you, Hawaii is a battleground state now and I laugh at the Democrates response.

The Reps send VP Chaney...
The Dems send...
John Kerry's eldest Daughter and Gore

I think the Dems are not taking our votes seriously...We Republicans would love to swing HI, but I don't see it happening. We think your governor is great.

But this system isn't a very good direct democracy, under a direct democracy, a scenario like this just wouldn't happen. :rolleyes:
It is not a democracy, it is a representative republic.

New Mexico has gone from a 10% Kerry lead to a 8% Bush lead...in one week...FROM THE SAME POLLSTER. I really don't know what to believe.

Rasmussen skews slightly Republican.

New Mexico is a tossup, but I think Bush might get it.


As well, Kerry is far more likely to win Wisconsin and lose Iowa, rather than win Iowa and lose Wisconsin.

and Hawaii is NOT a battleground...Gore won it by 18.5%, the two recent polls done to show it tied are not nationally run polls, and thus their methodology is suspect. Considering that one was run by a newspaper, I'm even less willing to believe it. Can you say, sensationalism? They're trying to make it seem close cause it makes good news. Bush has moved ahead slightly I believe, but not by enough to even consider it a close state.

Watch it Natural Choice... the polls show us practically split. How Chaney handles himself on Sunday may make all the difference.

Would be interesting to have all those newscasters forced to stay up and wait till Hawaii's votes are counted. After all, they were anouncing the winners before Hawaii's polls close.

Watch it Natural Choice... the polls show us practically split. How Chaney handles himself on Sunday may make all the difference.

Would be interesting to have all those newscasters forced to stay up and wait till Hawaii's votes are counted. After all, they were anouncing the winners before Hawaii's polls close.
Yeah, that would be fantastic. Hell, they call the race before the polls close on the west coast. They are always jumping the gun. Go Hawaii, Vote BUsh. W00t!

:rolleyes:
It is not a democracy, it is a representative republic.If you paid a bit more attention you'd see that was my point.

New Mexico has gone from a 10% Kerry lead to a 8% Bush lead...in one week...FROM THE SAME POLLSTER. I really don't know what to believe. Yeah, the Zogby interactive thing? It's ridiculous. I think Kerry can carry NM, I mean even a lot of my hard core Republican friends are deserting Bush to vote Libertarian (which do a whole lot better than the polls give them credit for)

and Hawaii is NOT a battleground...Gore won it by 18.5%, the two recent polls done to show it tied are not nationally run polls, and thus their methodology is suspect. Considering that one was run by a newspaper, I'm even less willing to believe it. Can you say, sensationalism? They're trying to make it seem close cause it makes good news. Bush has moved ahead slightly I believe, but not by enough to even consider it a close state.

That was in 2000 check the polls for 2004. :rolleyes:

Bush was ahead... granted not by a wide margin but enough to make wooing Hawaii necessary.

Hey, we have our first Republican Governor in over 30 years... change is in the air.

That was in 2000 check the polls for 2004. :rolleyes: The whole point I'm trying to make here is that polls are unreliable.

Originally Posted by Natural Choice
It is not a democracy, it is a representative republic.

Although the electors are supposed to go with the votes of their state/region, but yes, it is a republic. (Something many citizens fail to remember)

True, but you cannot discount the polls totally. The gradual shift away from Democratic control over Hawaii was gradual but documented in the polls.

Basically I take polls with a grain of salt. and also I'm happy that the canidates are not ignoring Hawaii... at least the Reps are sending someone who is running, and can answer our questions with more certainty than a friend and eldest daughter.

True, but you cannot discount the polls totally.No, either extreme isn't reasonable, but I think it's more reasonable to ignore them than set all your faith by them.

last time I checked it takes more than one person to swing a state...

The humor in Unfree People's post clearly eluded you.

That was in 2000 check the polls for 2004. :rolleyes:

Bush was ahead... granted not by a wide margin but enough to make wooing Hawaii necessary.

Hey, we have our first Republican Governor in over 30 years... change is in the air.
I'm from Hawaii, but going to college in Arizona. I know a bit about state politics and you are right, Democrat control in Hawaii is slipping. Filipinos are heavily Republican, and the Asian community isn't gonna be strong enough to offset them and the Caucasians. Democrat control goes back to the statehood movement, and has built up a strong in-state network. But Lingle's election was a bad sign for the state Dems. I still don't believe the voters could shift 20% in 4 years though. As well, Hawaii will always be more liberal than the rest of America. It just depends on how the parties work with that (for instance, Lingle's support for native Hawaiian issues, even though that makes her unpopular with the national GOP).

Eh Chodolo, Weah you stea from?

I think you are all missing what really matters here

The REDSKINS GAME!

In the final home game before a presidential election...when the redskins win, the incumbent wins. When the redskins lose, the challenger wins. Right now the redskins are 2pt underdogs to the packers.


You guys need to stop following your witchcraft and superstitious polls and stick with the proven scientific methods of the past and go to the local sports bar and root for wichever team supports your respective candidate.

Polls? sheesh...start living in the real world people.

============================

But if the senate were to elect edwards as veep, he would be fairly powerless for 4yrs except in cases of a senate ties on certain votes. That would require a democrat to cross lines on a vote if it follows the scenario you are proposing earlier in this thread.
================================

By why worry about all of that...Its all about the redskins-packers game!

Be well.

All of you living in battleground states get to have all the fun! Living in Kansas as a democrat is hell (although, admittedly, we did elect a Democratic governor, so we have that going for us)

Wouldn't make a difference, since the House would pick the President. Still, look forward to the GOP adding 1-4 seats to their Senate lead.. :cool:
That's one prediction I certainly don't mind making.
Then you ought to be preparing for a shocker. Just look at most of the Senate races, the Democrats look like they could retake the majority in the Senate, and then some.