Are there any websites that are tracking the presidential election on a state by state electoral college basis?
This would be more telling than if Bush leads Gore by 46% to 45% or whatever. If Gore wins NY, CA and some key states in the midwest, then it won’t matter if Bush leads by a percentage point overall.
(Moderator - This isn’t meant as a political debate, so please don’t ship me off where I won’t get any answer. Thanks.)
I saw a state by state breakdown in one of the newsmagazines (either Time or Newsweek, I can’t recall) just last week. They had listed so many of the states in the “leaning but not ready to call it” column that neither candidate was anywhere near a majority.
It’s tough to find all of the relevant polls for the 50 states and DC for free on the web. http://www.nationaljournal.com offers some to its subscribers I think.
Normally, the big media outlets will print polls from the states that are the largest or the most contested. You probably don’t need to know that Gore has a big lead in DC and that Bush has Wyoming in the bag.
However, an LA Times story today (8/29) had polls for several states, including places as different as California and Iowa.
You’ll be seeing plenty of maps depicting the electoral college projections in the coming weeks.
it isn’t on their website and I’d like to find something like their state by state map which is updated every couple weeks. Maybe Newsweek will come through in the near future.
A candidate needs to win only 11 states to become president:
Electoral Votes (total all states): 538 Neede to win: 270
California: 54
New York: 33
Texas: 32
Florida: 25
Pennsylvania: 23
Illinois: 22
Ohio: 21
Michigan: 18
New Jersey: 15
North Carolina: 14
Georgia or Virginia: 13
I’m not positive but I believe this can be done without winning the popular vote as added nationwide.
While you can just win those 11 states, it’s that an extremely unlikely coalition to win. Especially if you’re not winning any other states.
Better get ready for some serious delegation of authority:
Submitted for your persual:
http://www.wikman.com/eric/electoralcollege.html
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/
http://www.policy.com/news/dbrief/dbriefarc770.asp
According to these sources, with a two-party system you could win with as little as 22% of the popular vote and even less for three parties or more. The winner of the Electoral College vote has had a minority of the popular vite 15 times, most recently in 1992 and 1996.
Whether this is a bad thing is, of course, hotly debated.
Just in case everyone is lazy, let’s see if this translates:
http://hotlinescoop.com/web/content/campaignscoop/whitehouse/evscore.htm
ELECTORAL COLLEGE TOTALS: (270 electoral votes needed to win)
LEADS OUTSIDE MoE ALL LEADS
STATES EVs STATES EVs
Bush 16 187 Bush 23 246
Gore 2 87 Gore 8 170
STATE BUSH GORE POLL DATE MoE
(+ indicates lead inside the MoE, ++ a lead outside)
AR (6) +46 40 Mason-Dixon 7/13-15 +/- 4
AZ (8) +43 34 Rocky Mountain 8/11-16 +/- 5
CA (54) 37 ++50 Field Poll 8/18-22 +/- 3.4
CT (8) 41 +44 Quinnipiac Univ. 7/12-17 +/- 3.1
CO (8) ++47 33 Talmey-Drake 6/6-13 +/- 4
DE (3) ++49 38 Univ. of DE “late July” +/- 5
FL (25) ++48 35 Amer. Research 8/11-12 +/- 4
HI (4) +40 35 Ward Research 8/11-16 +/- 5.3
ID (4) ++57 21 Research 2000 7/5-8 +/- 4
IL (22) 40 +42 Market Shares 7/19-23 +/- 3
IN (12) ++57 26 McLaughlin ® 8/8-9 +/- 3.4
KY (8) ++48 34 Preston-Osborne 6/5-16 +/- 3.6
MD (10) 40 +43 Mason-Dixon 7/19-21 +/- 4
MI (18) 42 +44 EPIC-MRA 8/20-22 +/- 4
MN (10) 40 +48 Mason-Dixon 8/21-22 +/- 4
MO (11) ++48 37 Mason-Dixon 7/6-10 +/- 4
MT (3) ++53 30 Lake Snell (D) 8/5-7 +/- 4
NV (4) ++49 37 Mason-Dixon 6/12-15 +/- 4
NH (4) ++49 39 ARG 6/19-22 +/- 4
NJ (15) 37 +49 Quinnipiac 8/18-22 +/- 3.5
NY (33) 35 ++45 InterSurvey 8/9-17 +/- 4
NC (14) +46 39 Mason-Dixon 7/20-23 +/- 4
OH (21) ++47 36 FNC/Opin Dynamics 7/19-20 +/- 4.3
OK (8) ++57 27 Consumer Logic 6/21-26 +/- 3.5
PA (23) ++48 33 Amer. Research 8/11-12 +/- 4
SC (8) ++53 31 Quinn Assoc. ® 8/4-10 +/- 3.7
TX (32) ++71 20 ARG 7/7-12 +/- 4
VA (13) ++49 38 Mason-Dixon 7/12-14 +/- 4
WA (11) +43 39 Research 2000 7/7-10 +/- 4
WV (5) +45 37 Mason-Dixon 7/26-29 +/- 4.4
WI (11) +47 41 Harris Inter. 6/26-29 +/- 3.3
States Not Listed: AL (9); AK (3); GA (13); IA (7);
KS (6); LA (9); ME (4); MA (12); MS (7); NE (5); ND (3);
NM (5); OR (7); RI (4); SD (3); TN (11); UT (5); VT (3);
WY (3); DC (3)
Looks like most of the polls listed at the site linked by sofa king predate the Democratic convention (and the ensuing “bounce”). For that reason, I’m not sure they tell us much. I hope the site will be updated to reflect more recent developments.
I saw a breakdown in Newsweek a few weeks ago that broke the states down in 4 categories
Safe for Bush
Leaning for Bush
Safe for Gore
Leaning to Gore
What was interesting was that the Safe for Bush and Leaning to Gore numbers were almost equal as were the Leaning for Bush and Safe for Gore. They each had around 170 Safe/Leaning. From that I conclude that Bush has a stronger base so that he can focus on the undecided voters. Gore needs to go on the attack, which I think he has done. Of course, I’m sure the polls are different now that the dem convention is over.
Gore needs California to have a chance. If Bush gets Cali and Texas he has it. If Bush loses California, then he needs Michigan and Ohio. I think the vote will be very close and could even be thrown to the House of Representatives.
Another interesting tidbit: If Gore loses, he will be in the unique position of presiding over the electoral college vote and declaring himself the loser. The last to do this was Nixon in 1960.
If they tie in electoral votes, then I think the Senate votes to decide. If they tie at 50-50, then the president (?) of the Senate gets the deciding vote. Who would Gore pick?
If there is a 269-269 tie for president, the House chooses, voting by state. If there is a 269-269 tie for vice president, the Senate chooses, with each Senator voting.
Don’t hold your breath for that outcome.
“What was interesting was that the Safe for Bush and Leaning to Gore numbers were almost equal as were the Leaning for Bush and Safe for Gore. They each had around 170 Safe/Leaning. From that I conclude that Bush has a stronger base so that he can focus on the undecided voters.”
Huh? If they had identical numbers, how can you make that conclusion? Or am I missing something?
Connor - always seems to be missing something
Ah, but if it is going to be close and even a single state votes independent (Green or Reform, for example), then Bush and Gore don’t have to tie for there not to be a majority.
If Nader, Buchanan, or Hagelin win a state, there’s going be some explaining to do. I doubt that any of those three will be lucky to get double digits in any state.
You’d be more likely to see an unfaithful elector for whomever s/he pleased.
Regardless of how the election turns out when the electoral votes are counted, it is the President of the Senate’s responsiblity (i.e. Al Gore) to announce the result. He’s either going to be very happy or quite bummed out.
Wouldn’t you like to get up in front of Congress and say, “According to the results of the votes of the electors … we hereby declare ME to be the winner.”
spoke is right, those polls are based on old data. Gore is now leading Bush overall, but still within the MoE. In CA, Gore, however, is leading by some 10 % pts, and is almost a shoe-in. It is interesting to see Fla be undecieded. After all, it is run by W’s brother. However, in the cities there is a large gore vote. Again, my prediction- Gore by a small but comfortable lead in the EC, but only a plurality of the Popular vote.
Bob is right, in order for the “others” to get any votes they have to win an entire stste, and they ain’t a gonna make it. Note even Perot did not win any States, and he had some dbl digit support.
Gore will lose his lead as the Democratic convention fades from memory. This might actually be a close race, folks. I say Bush will win by a small margin of both popular support and electoral votes. If Buchanon or Nader get a state or two, however, then perhaps nobody will get a majority. (I could see Buchanon getting Mississippi or some other bible belt state, especially with main-party choices as uninspiring as Tree Hugger and Daddy’s Boy.) If this happens Bush and Cheney will win for sure because Republicans control both houses of Congress.
Conner, here’s how I came up with that conclusion.
Strong for Bush was about equal to Leaning to Gore
Leaning to Bush was about equal to Strong for Gore
That tells me that Bush’s bases is bigger because his “Strong for” was much larger than Gore’s “Strong for”. So he wouldn’t have to campaign as much in those states.
Whereas Gore will have to focus on both his “Leaning to” category to shore it up plus the 25-30 % undecided. Bush’s “Leaning to” was smaller so he wouldn’t have to stretch himself out as thin.
They don’t have to tie to throw the election to the House. If one candidate fails to get 270 electoral votes then it gets sent to the House of Representatives. I think there is a 10-15 percent chance of that happening.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jeff_42 *
**
IOW, you don’t have to fool all of the people all of the time. You just have to fool a majority (or even a plurality) of the voters in eleven states. Since only half of all eligible Americans bother to vote, a candidate needs to fool only 25 per cent+ of the eligible voters in eleven states.
Scary.