We're in the home stretch: Election predictions

Great Debates
61

A month ago I said the following:

Kerry had good debates and came off looking like a guy who could fill the presidential shoes, particularly compared to a very underwhelming Bush. I’m still waiting for Karl Rove’s inevitable October Surprise, but momentum and the comfort level of the swing voters are now on Kerry’s side. I’ll go out on a limb and predict a 2 or 3 point popular vote win for Kerry, with a narrow win in FL and a somewhat larger margin in OH tipping the scales in the Electoral College.

Oh great, now I’ve jinxed it.

62

I mean 7-5 for whoever you pick. Bet $7 on Kerry, win $12. Bet $7 on Bush, win $12.

It’s shorthand for “I have no idea who will win, and don’t care to bet on it.”

We’ll see in a few weeks.

Regards,
Shodan

63

I thinking a split, 269 – 269, and it goes to the US House of Representatives. The Representatives of each State cast their votes with the majority votes within that State deciding that State’s vote. The State vote being equal to one means there will be 50 State votes cast. There I’m expecting a 25-25 tie.

64

The majority of state delegations to the house are republican dominated, so a tie in the electoral would lead to a Bush presidency.

As I understand it though, while the standing house members vote for president in the event of an electoral tie, the newly elected senate vote for the VP. If the democrats win control of the senate, we could see a Bush/Edwards or Bush/Kerry
ticket, which would be hilarious.

65

The 25-25 tie — that was a joke. The 269-269 could really happen I suspect. I really don’t know how the States in play and their electoral votes split up.

66

Each state gets a vote for each of its reps in Congress (senators+house reps)

67

At the time of the vote, though, the Senate would still be under Republican control, wouldn’t it?

68

I know how the number of electoral votes each State receives is determined. What I was referring to was how likely it is that there will be a 269-269 split — considering the electoral votes of the States that are still in play. Using those States, it could be that once the math is done, a 269 split isn’t possible or isn’t very likely.

69

You say that because you don’t live where I live.
Salaam. A

70

Alde, Armageddon implies the end of the world…it doesn’t MATTER where you live. See, if it were Armageddon we’d ALL be dead.

-XT

71

Can anyone quantify the “cell phone factor?” I’d like to think it would be significant, and significantly pro-Kerry, but maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part.

All I can offer by way of a cite is my personal observation that this year’s residential pages (which don’t list cellphones) in Atlanta were half the thickness of the year before’s.

72

I predict a low-key, but successful, October surprise will swing the election to Bush.

I think the Dept. of Homeland Security will raise the alert level to orange or red 2-3 days before the election.

They will fabricate some (conveniently) classified intelligence report indicating an imminent terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The elevated terror alert will remain in place through election day.

Nothing will come of it, of course, but enough voters will fall for this fear-mongering and vote NOT to change horses in midstream, thinking that it’s unwise to have a government in transition when an insidious enemy is poised to attack us.

Sadly, that’s what I think’s going to happen. :frowning:

73

I belive that the electoral votes are counted after the new congress takes office. So the new senate and the new house are the ones who vote in the event of a tie. This almost certainly won’t make a difference in the case of the house, but the senate could be in democratic hands by then (or even more interestingly, tied).

In the event of a tie in the senate, one would presume that Cheney would cast the deciding vote for himself. I presume, but am not certain, that he’d be VP at this time.

I think I was wrong in saying it could be Bush/Kerry though, as I think the senate can only choose from amonst people who received votes as VP’s

74

See, I just thought that Armageddon buried all lands.

Seriously, that is indeed an over-the-top claim. Besides, since when do we have plans to nuke Europe? (And yes, I’m aware that the military probably has plans available for nuclear bombardment and subsequent occupation of any European country or the continent as a whole.)

Could I put in a request for a lack of such hyperbole in this thread?

Another possible complication that would have to be figured into those calculations would be whether or not Colorado will split its votes and that depends on whether or not the amendment passes and meets any legal challenges. Then you have to have some idea of what the breakdown in Colorado would be, as well as in Maine, where it’s being seriously discussed that the state could split its votes for the first time.

75

I’m cautiously predicting Kerry (though didn’t a few weeks ago) but I’m not even guessing numbers. Here’s why.

The voter registration factor is going to be crucial. Though both parties are increasing registration, the Democrats are doing much better in strongly democratic areas. I think the newly registered are more likely to vote.

Bush’s negatives are high and getting higher. There are clearly people claiming to be voting for him who think the country is going in the wrong direction. I don’t think these people will swing to Kerry, but are they going to get it together to vote on election day?

Bush may call Kerry a flip-flopper, but that’s not how he came across in the debates. I don’t think Bush answered the charges of being for the rich very well. (His response to the minimum wage question was pitiful - there are reasons to argue for not raising it, but he didn’t give any.) I can’t imagine too many people on the fence getting charged up for Bush based on the debates.

DHS has cried wolf too many time, so raising the alert level won’t do anything - and it might even hurt if people go to the polls and nothing has happened. I’m much more worried about fraud.

76

Conversely, it is my contention that the majority of Bush voters will be doing so from emotion rather than rationality.

77

Yes, I know the Bible.

And you think that matters to Lunatic Christians in the USA who think (claimed) the invasion of Iraq is just the onset to a nuclear war in the ME leading to the Second Coming of Christ? (In the same type of mindset you find the greatest supporters of Israel)

Well, if there is one set of lunatics I see capable to make these dreams come true, you have them where apparently at least 50% of the voters in the USA wants them to stay.

Salaam. A

78

I’m not absolutely sure I understand you, but here goes.

You seem to be saying that your predicted effort to change the electoral system for future elections would be “justified” if Bush wins without the popular vote.

Do you agree with the electoral college process or not? If you don’t believe it’s a good thing for our Presidential elections, that’s fine. But it would always have been a bad thing; it would not have required two Bush victories to have made it so.

I’m really curious about what your reaction would be if the situation were reversed. Would you heave a sigh of relief that the electoral college saved America from “four more years” despite the feelings of the majority of voters?

Just asking, not fighting. :slight_smile:

True Blue Jack

79

No . . . but it might require two such victories in a row to make it an issue. In most presidential elections the electoral-vote winner is the same as the popular-vote winner anyhow, so while some people grumble about the EC, nobody regards the issue as urgent enought to merit a constitutional-amendment fight. If Bush wins the EC vote but Kerry wins the popular vote on Nov. 2, that might change.

80

What fun is something like this if you don’t offer up a little chutzpah? So here goes:

I’m going to predict Kerry wins the popular vote by 4 points, and wins the electoral vote, too. I predict that we’ll not know the exact number until all the mail-in ballots are counted, which will take longer than usual this year, and there will certainly be a couple of contested states, particularly if those states are called for Kerry. Here’s what Kerry will win:

solid
California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey (I don’t get the New Jersey-is-close myth)
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

comfortably
Florida
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Oregon
Pennsylvania

it’s gonna be close
Arkansas
Colorado
Iowa
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio
Wisconsin

The states not listed above, I believe, will go to Bush in varying degrees. This brings my electoral tally to 342 Kerry, 196 Bush. There might be a couple of surprises, like Arizona, Tennessee and Virginia going for Kerry, but that would depend on Kerry being positioned for a landslide, which I don’t think will happen. But with all these new voters, who knows?

The Senate will go Democratic. Most of the 34 races will stay the same. The changes will be:

Democrat to Republican
Georgia
South Carolina

Republican to Democrat
Alaska
Colorado
Illinois
Oklahoma
Kentucky might switch—the unfolding saga of Senator Bunning’s trip off the deep end might tip this race to the Democrats. Stay tuned!

As to the House, I’m not going to get into detail (not that I’m able to.) I’ll just say that the Democrats will probably pick up a couple of seats, net gain, but will still be the minority party there.

Gubernatorial:
Delaware—stays D
Indiana—stays D
Missouri—D to R
Montana—R to D
New Hampshire—R to D
North Carolina—stays D
North Dakota—stays R
Utah—stays R
Vermont—R to D
Washington—stays D
West Virginia—stays D

I’ll be able to get more specific as the election draws nearer. I predict that by Thanksgiving, I’ll be able to predict this thing perfectly.