Given that the site is being run by a conservative who is a professional mathematician and statistician, I find it even more hopeful
Another site that doesnt actually project, but maps current states that are either strongly favoring a candidate or leaning owards that candidate is at:
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htmThe states are less impressive here, and do not account for polls that seem to have been done in order to effect public opinion as to Bush's crappy performance in them so there seems to be a good deal more fluctuation from week to week on who is ahead where.
But the last month this site has had Kerry with a significant lead in states where polls have been done right now this site show Kerry leading with 216 electoral votes, 168 in states where Kerry has a firm lead and is expected to win in November. Five other states leaning towards Kerry and give him another 48 electoral votes.
For Bush there is a total of 149 Electoral votes, with 11 states in which Bush leads strongly for 111 electoral votes, and another 4 states leaning towards Bush for another 38 electoral votes.
This site does not account for States that are called too close to tell, in which Kerry not only leads, but has been leading for most of the time since March. There are 9 of these states with 10 electoral votes.
Kerry leads 6 of the states that are too close to call and these give him 71 electoral votes.
Bush leads in 3 of these states and they would give him 26 electoral votes.
So right now Kerry is ahead in enough states for him to have win the election with 287 electoral votes.
This is without Ohio, which because of one recent Mason Dixon Poll is now considered to have swung back into the leans towards Bush arena, even though every other poll in the last month or more has Kerry in the lead in Ohio.
Now if we add the 26 additional electoral votes to Bush's 149, this gives Bush a total of 175 electoral votes.
There are still 11 states that have not done any polling, but if Kerry keeps every state in which he now leads, even if Bush can win every state left that has not done any polls, Kerry still wins in the electoral college. With 287 EV to Bush's 241 EV.
All that is neccessary right now for Kerry to be elected through the electoral college is for him to keep every state he now is ahead in, and it seems very likely that he will keep all of them.
I have been noting for months that Kerry seems to have been concerned with winning the electoral college before considering winning the popular vote, and this stragegy is paying off. Bush took the entire South in 2000, even though his opponent, Gore was also from the South. Kerry also seems to be taking that into account and focusing heavily on winning in his own home turf, the northeast, and then focusing on the west coast and most importantly, the midwest. I think that this election the midwest will make the election, and it will replace the south in presidential politics fro the next several election cycles. Which is why I think that Kerry will select a VP who will be string in the midwest, and according to political history and political wisdom, that translates into Kerry selecting a midwesterner as his running mate. For months, I like everyone else assumed, and strongly supported Edwards as the running mate. Very strongly suported him and frequently stated both in posts and PM's that I was 99 percent certain that Edwards would be the VP nomination. Looking at the map, I am not only no longer sure of this, but I beleive it would not be the best choice for Kerry to make strategically, as he must hold onto the midwest, where his leads are good, but nothing like the very large double digit leads he has in the Northeast, and in California. His leads are a bit smaller in much of the midwest, low double digits or even high single digits, and there are also some midwestern states that are too close to call with Kerry having a two or three point lead. So strategic campaigning really suggests a midwesterner who can hep Kerry maintain and extend his leads in Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota, and perhaps states like Pennsylvania into leaning towards Kerry rather than too close to tell.
In the south there is just too big a lead for BUsh in most of the states ,and the few states that are leaning towards Bush, like Nort Carolina, and Arkansas (oddly Edwards and Clarks home states are leaning towards Bush, and so would take more of an effort to reverse into Kerry states, than it would be for a midwesterner to help Kerry keep his leads in Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota, and widen them) SO in my best estimation, from a simply strategic point of view, as well as historical precedents, I beleive that Kerry will not choose Edwards or Clark, but a midwesterner, noe necessarily Gephardt, but Gephardt is the safest choice, as there is nothing unexpected that will show up in his record that can be used to smear him, as well as having been vetted during the process of two presidential bids. Everyone goes nuts when I say this, but both strategically and historically, the situation on the ground suggests that this is what Kerry will do. People speculate that Edwards or Clark will be able to deliver areas that are not their home grounds based on how they did during the primaries and caucuses in other areas of the country, but that is simply speculative, and a far less sure thing than selecting someone who has actually won elections in the region in the past. Gepharts poor performance in Iowa seems to have had more to do with the caucus process itself, than in support for Gephardt in general, just as the caucus's upset unseated Dean as the frontrunner. Gephadt has far more regional drawing power than the Iowa Caucus would suggest. All attempt to guess at what Edwards or Clark could bring to the Kerry campaign are at best, just that guesses. But Gephardt already has one thing that he absolutely can deliver. A much more active support of the Teamsters union, who met with Kerry and strongly hinted that Kerry would get a lot better support from the teamsters if Gephardt was his running mate. No lack of clarity there, I think. They basically told Kerry that he had to chooose Gephardt if Kerry wantd the most enthusiastic support of the Teamsters. The union will support Kerry, in name,as they usually support any democrat but without Gephardt, that support can be rather less active if they are not pleased with Kerry's VP nomination.
So on the whole, I belive that Kerry will end up selecting Gephardt, but if not Gephardt, than anothermidwesterner with somewhat solid democratic credentials. Recently Dick Durban has been mentioned, and I think he would also be an excellent choice.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
