|
Well, I'm struggling with that eggs idea. I'm not against recounting Ohio, or even the Democrats putting in some backing, but I have been noting others are trying to do things in other states. Of course, most famously is Florida, which, like Ohio, by itself could turn it around in the Elect College. Then there was Nevada, where they were trying. It may be too late there now, from what I read today, but I'm still waiting to hear about the lawsuit that one judge rejected, as to whether it will be appealed. Now, there's New Mexico, where they're asking for a recount. Iowa was close and a slow count amid a lot of glitches All three of these were closer, percentage-wise, than Ohio insofar as state tallies. IF all three were recounted and went to Kerry, it would tie it up, 269-269 in the Electoral College, which would eventually give it to Bush and give the Democrats a lot of bad publicity. I've been trying to put some data together here in AR. I'm sure others are, too. If AR, IA and either NM or NV went to Kerry, on some kind of recount or other, Kerry would get 270 elect votes w/0 OH or FL. I've been going over the Sec'y State's site here, because even today they are still posting updated county tallies (12/3). I got the total Undervote figures as given by the State at this time. It's 7909. I don't know the formula for this, or the historical average or the historical maximum average, etc. But I know it's fairly low most of the time, as to how many votes the Democrats get versus Republicans on these Undervote checks. About 1/4 become votes, and maybe more than half are Democrats, of that 1/4. In other words, the good news is that the Democrats usually pick up more votes than the GOP from undervote recounts. The bad news is that it ain't much. Here, that would be 54% of 26% of 7909, most probably, about 1050 votes, to come off of a 102,000+ vote lead. And even to get this much of a correction would cost into the thousands of dollars. So, with a Bush margin here of around 102,000 votes over Kerry, there's little hope of a recount turning it around. Bush is down to 53.9% now, instead of 54%, since the State itself has made some corrections. And we don't have the kind of hostile GOP state machinery here, as in OH: our people are Demos. But, like Bush being at 50.90 in OH, with a 126,000 vote lead instead of a 136,000-vote one, it's slow going. And we don't have tons of time. However, apparently we do have, on some level, until January 6, not just until December 13. I'm just trying to find something to look at, some NUMBERS. I'm not a number person either, so I'm getting cross-eyed. But I just have my doubts about the official figures here, and I think, this time, they are off badly, not just moderately--more so than the Undervote figures I've just given. But I don't have one thing on paper to suggest this. Just a gut feeling, due to this Clinton activity in the last 24 hours. Every pre-11/2 poll in that last 24 hours showed Bush dropping here with female voters. Vietnam was important to women, and I think Clinton bridged a gap there when he got involved. And he's very popular HERE. As for Iowa, well it's no good fooling with AR without IA anyway, since without the seven votes of Iowa and five from NV or NM, we can't go forward to win w/o Ohio or FL. I haven't heard anyone calling for a new count or check in Iowa, either. No one's calling for one here, either, I'm just trying to see if there's anything else here.
We have a Native American population that's been more political active in the last few years, an increased Hispanic population, and a sizable disabled vet population. And we have Clinton.
On the other hand, there are now a lot of homeless in AR, as there are elsewhere. I just wonder: is it possible that a bad economy, when it's bad enough, ironically becomes harder to change because people can't meet residency requirements? I saw indications of this in PA in 1984, for example. Was the voting equipment rigged, or is there some kind of built-in glitch in it that seems to always favor Bush? The New Hampshire recount didn't find this, but it was very limited in scope, though supposedly targeted by skilled academic professionals, but the state was highly fluid in the pre-election polls, so it's possible rural votes were more erratic than might have appeared, rather than the urban alone. On and on we go. The number add up 10 at a time, against leads of hundreds of thousands, while time is whizzing by...
|