|
17360
|
Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:States after 2004.
|
on: November 06, 2003, 05:01:28 pm
|
You"re dreaming if you think conservative Va, Mississippi, or South Carolina vote will vote Dem. I've said this before but kerry, Dean, and company couldn't carry those states if Robert E. Lee was their VP. And kentucky? Come on. Don't look for any Dem noninee to even set foot in those states. However, I'd love for them to waste time and resources there. It would be about like the money and time Bush wasted in California the last wk of the 2000 campaign.
Clinton carried kentucky both times, IIRC...
|
|
|
|
|
17362
|
Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:States after 2004.
|
on: November 06, 2003, 06:25:28 am
|
|
Mississippi is changing-their governor is a democrat and they had a high (for them) vote for Gore in 2000 (45% IIRC)
Given the right push, I can see it going towards the Democrats.
I concede I might be a bit ambitious giving them South Carolina; it has been republican since 1980, but I could see it if Edwards was the VP candidate.
Virginia has ben won by Republicans for a while, but by slim margins-Bush was a statistical err in 2000-Clinton lost it in 1996 by a very slim margin-and Carter also came close tom winning it.
I see New Jersey as carring the incumbent, basically because of world events-it is my impression the new jersey have been significantly affected by 9/11 and have become more conservative because of it-I see it as a close race, and I think that the surburbanites will turn republican-it happened with George Bush sn., he won much of northern new jersey in 1992.
(sources, of course, from this website)
|
|
|
|
|
17363
|
Questions and Answers / Presidential Election Process / Re:Election process if no one gets a majority in the Elec College?
|
on: November 06, 2003, 02:28:27 am
|
|
I think New Zealand has the best idea-Compulsory Preferential voting by party (congress) or individual (president)
ie, everyone votes; they vote for the party they like best, then second, third, etc., for congress
For presidents, have preferential primaries, and then preferential presidential. Make primaries optional (obviously) but the vote for the actual president should be compulsory.
It is the only way a majority of the adult population can truly elect their choice; if it isn't preferential a candidate coulw win with 45% of the votes, and with only 50% of the population voting-thats less then a quarter of the population!
|
|
|
|
|
17364
|
Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:States after 2004.
|
on: November 06, 2003, 02:04:30 am
|
|
I'm saying Republicans 271-267 Democrats
DEMOCRAT
Hawaii Washington Oregon California New Mexico Iowa Wisconsin Louisiana Mississippi New York Vermont New Hampshire Maine Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut Michigan Illinois Kentucky (?) West Virginia DC Virginia South Carolina Maryland Delaware
REPUBLICAN
Alaska Arizona Colorado Utah Nevada Idaho Wyoming Montana North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas Oklahoma Texas Arkansas Misouri Minnesota (?) Alabama Florida Georgia Tennessee North Carolina Pennsylvania Ohio Indiana New Jersey
Bit controvertial, I know, but definently possible.
Change Kentucky to Republican and they win 279 to 259
Change Minnesota to Democrat and they win 277 to 261
|
|
|
|
|
|