Election Math

[OrdinaryTa]

Bush won thumping victories throughout the South in 2000, as these figures attest. Numbers in parentheses represent electoral votes; the second pair of numbers represents Bush's margin of victory.

In 2004, Bush can sit on his hands and not campaign at all in these states. He'll still get more than half the electoral votes needed to win the election. Source: http://www.multied.com/elections/2000certified.html

Alabama    (9)     56-41
Georgia    (13)     55-43
Louisiana    (9)     53-45
Mississippi    (7)     58-41
No. Carolina    (14)     56-43
So. Carolina    (8)     57-41
Tennessee    (11)     51-47
Texas    (32)     59-38
Virginia    (13)     53-44

Total    (116)

Needed    (270)

Border States:

Arkansas    (6)     51-46
Kentucky    (8)     56-41
Oklahoma    (8)     60-38

Total    (22)


116 + 22 = 138 or 51% of the 270 needed

[dsc]

1. The same thing can be said

in the opposite direction about places like CA, NY, NJ, MA etc. We start off about even in that regard.

[OrdinaryTa]

7. Gore's Thumping Victories

As you say, Gore won a number of big states by a huge margin. These four states total 114 electoral votes.

California     (54)     53-42
New York     (33)     60-35
New Jersey     (15)     56-40
Massachusetts     (12)     60-32

Bush will probably not waste his time campaigning in the District of Columbia.

D.C.     (2)     85-9

[Sirius_on]

2. Toss Colorado, Utah, N.D, S.D into that as well.

nt

[ButterflyBlood]

4. Not Colorado

that's a possibility, but Utah and Idaho should be added.

[Sirius_on]

6. Co has been trending Right for a while

Its a lost cause, trust me.

[OrdinaryTa]

8. Bush Will Have to Campaign in Colorado

Colorado     (8)     51-42

Nader got 5% of the vote, so Bush defeated the combined Gore-Nader votes by 51-48. These are not thumping numbers. To win in 2004, Bush will have to campaign in Colorado.

[Friar]

3. Mr. Pitt is gonna getcha for that

Once a stunning blonde looks at you with lowered lashes and says, "C'more heah y'all", you'll forget all about this.

[ButterflyBlood]

5. Once I used an electoral map

and found out that the Dem base is actually more electoral votes than the Repuke base.

[Bombtrack]

9. our safe states are not set in stone

Bush could win 50 states against someone like Dean if things go relatively well for him(internationally, economy etc) or he could lose by a hundred electoral votes against someone like Edwards if things go badly(second recession, bad debate etc)

unless we nominate Edwards or Graham, and Graham won't be able to get the nom, Bush comes into things with his solid states worth much more cumulitivly than the dem

[depakid]

11. Things are not going to go relatively well

Either on the economic front or in Iraq. Bush and the Republicans' economic "views" (if you can even call them that) portend disaster. They reflect only a compendium of campaign contributors and lobbiests, and in the aggregate- those interests spell bad macroeconomic policy. There's no real plan, nor even the pretence of one, other than pimped copy read and written by media whores.

Add in state and local Republican control in many places, and the goose gets cooked. Mark my words. We are in for a very harsh ride that will only get worse before it gets better.

Internationally, we have a similar debacle. The very same policy makers remain on a crusade to alienate the very international institutions that might actually have a chance, however slight, of allowing the Iraqi's themselves to build a stable, non-fundamentalist government. Preying on fears and prejudices, all we have done thus far is to create a hotbed for extremism that attracts disaffected's from all over the region.

As the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

By the time November 2004 rolls around, all of this will be readily apparent, and an honest and a rational person like Howard Dean will appear prescient... even though he's not. I don't know about you, but that's an irony I can learn to live with.

[Bombtrack]

13. you don't know what things will be like and neither do i

so people here need to stop pretending they are psychic

[VoteClark]

10. Just more proof we need Clark

Clark would take Arkansas for sure. He is competative in Colorado because he was head of the Base at Ft. Hood. The South is heavily Democratic. If he can carry the military vote in the North he wins that state.

Throw in a southerner on the bottom of ticket in say Alabama, Ky, FL, or LA, and he has a clear electoral victory.

:kick:
J4Clark

[jeter]

12. I hate these types of threads

Why even have an election? Jesus, some Democrats are such pussy's. I remember in 2000 when some Dems believed we were dead meat. We won the popular vote and would have won the electoral college had it not been for fraud.

Fuck the south. Arizona, Nevada, Montana (where the GOP governor is less popular than Davis in CA), and yes even COLORADO will be in play if we actually contest them. And stop listening to this type of crap.

Question, which "red" states (those carried by Gore) will Bush actually win in 2004? The lesson of 2000 is that the republicans are in more trouble then anyone seems to notice. Because the DLC are in charge of the freakin Democratic Party and to them the south is everything.

The South is irrelevant. What the 2000 election showed us is that for the first time ever, the Democrats can win without carrying a single southern state.