Electoral Vote Predictor 2004

[Rich]

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Euri]

www.race2004.net has all the data laid out better.

[Jeremy Johnsen]

www.race2004.net has all the data laid out better.
I like it better than the first link, because they don't throw states that are too close to call onto someones side.

[JeffL]

It's really interesting how you can pick off a few states and get the majority of the electoral college votes. Pick up California, IL, and NY and you get 107 electoral college votes, and those are typically pretty much gimmees for the Dems. There really isn't a comparable gimme block of big states like that for the GOP (Texas is 34, but that's the only gimmee for Republicans.(

[steve]

There really isn't a comparable gimme block of big states like that for the GOP (Texas is 34, but that's the only gimmee for Republicans.(
Well, what about Texas plus the entire south and most of the midwest? Almost all of those red states are always "gimmes" for the Republicans.

[Tim Partlett]

There was an interesting link in there to a scathing attack (http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=5&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2F2004%2F040729_mf e_reagan.html&x=55&y=7) upon Bush by Ron Reagan, son of Ronald. It was a good read, and I'm surprised that I haven't heard more about it. Is Ronald's son a known extremist liberal whose views get discounted or something?

[Bub, Andrew]

Dems do better in population centers, GOP does better in rural areas. I mean, take Milwaukee and Chicago out of WI & IL and you have two red states there.

[quatoria]

There was an interesting link in there to a scathing attack (http://www.esquire.com/cgi-bin/printtool/print.cgi?pages=5&filename=%2Ffeatures%2Farticles%2F2004%2F040729_mf e_reagan.html&x=55&y=7) upon Bush by Ron Reagan, son of Ronald. It was a good read, and I'm surprised that I haven't heard more about it. Is Ronald's son a known extremist liberal whose views get discounted or something?

The freeper response to Ron JR, according to their forums, is that he's a sissy liberal queen who can't be listened to because he apparently attended ballet classes at one point. Oh, and that Nancy should disown him. (Amusing, since it's widely believed that he either went to the Dem convention because she told him to, or that she at least tacitly endorsed the act) I believe several posters said that GW was more of a true son to Reagan than his real son could/would ever be. In short, they've successfully painted it as if he were being a disloyal and ungrateful son, instead of appearing out of a desire to see research that could have saved his father pushed forward with all haste.

[Tim Partlett]

I could buy the "sissy liberal queen" bit, if he was known for slamming his father's acts as well, but that didn't seem the case from the article I wrote, which was quite deferential to his father's term in power as a Republican.

[JeffL]

There really isn't a comparable gimme block of big states like that for the GOP (Texas is 34, but that's the only gimmee for Republicans.(
Well, what about Texas plus the entire south and most of the midwest? Almost all of those red states are always "gimmes" for the Republicans.

Not always. In 1996 Clinton took Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and the entire Midwest (if you're talking Midwest as in Ohio, Michigan, IL, etc.) In 1992 he got all those and Georgia.

[steve]

Not always. In 1996 Clinton took Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and the entire Midwest (if you're talking Midwest as in Ohio, Michigan, IL, etc.) In 1992 he got all those and Georgia.
And by the same token, a Republican from California or New York might flip those states.

[Jason McCullough]

It's hard to picture, though. Gore won both of 'em by double digits.

[Jason McCullough]

Here's a random question: why on earth is Indiana so Republican? It kind of sticks out in the region.

[JeffL]

Here's a random question: why on earth is Indiana so Republican? It kind of sticks out in the region.

Perhaps because it's Midwest, like Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, but without the large blue collar/union pockets? (e.g., Cleveland/Akron, Chicago, Detroit?) Just guessing.

[JeffL]

Not always. In 1996 Clinton took Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and the entire Midwest (if you're talking Midwest as in Ohio, Michigan, IL, etc.) In 1992 he got all those and Georgia.
And by the same token, a Republican from California or New York might flip those states.

You just want to argue, don't you? ;)

But yeah, Ford (of all people) took California from Carter, although Carter did keep New York, and most of the south and Texas. And of course Reagan took California against Mondale, but Mondale only got 13 total electoral votes (can anyone imagine a vote that one sided these days? Reagan took every state but Minn. and D.C.)

[Jason McCullough]

CA being locked up for the Democrats is quite recent, historically speaking. Here's the timeline, ignoring landslides:

http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

Gore in 00 by 12
Clintin in 96 by 13
Clinton in 92 by 14
Bush over Dukasis in 88 by 4
Ford over Carter in 76 by 2
Nixon over Kennedy in 60 by .5
Truman over Dewey in 48 by .5

CA going safe Democrat is the flip side of the Southern Strategy, I think. It looks like '88 was the last year before it shook out.

[Jakub]

WTF?

Zbigniew Brzezinski is talking out against the Bush administration?

Someone's shitting me here.

[Gordon Cameron]

If the Ahnold amendment gets passed and he runs, could he carry California?

[Jason McCullough]

If the Ahnold amendment gets passed and he runs, could he carry California?

I honestly don't know. In a close election just having to defend it would be annoying for the Democrats, but I"m not sure if he could really carry it. He didn't break 50% in the recall, for example.