ABC lists out the states that make up their prediction of Bush 254 to 217

[papau]

The ABC NOTE has their first guess out as to how the race sets up at this point:

They chose to ignore what may be happening in Virginia that might move it to battleground if not to the Dems.

LIKELY REPUBLICAN STATES: (172 electoral votes)
Texas 34
Georgia 15
North Carolina 15
Virginia 13
Indiana 11
Tennessee 11
Alabama 9
Kentucky 8
South Carolina 8
Oklahoma 7
Kansas 6
Mississippi 6
Nebraska 5
Utah 5
Idaho 4
Alaska 3
Montana 3
North Dakota 3
South Dakota 3
Wyoming 3
TOTAL 172

BATTLE GROUND STATES LEANING REPUBLICAN:
Florida 27
Missouri 11
Arizona 10
Louisiana 9
Colorado 9
Arkansas 6
Nevada 5
West Virginia 5
REPUBLICAN TOTAL 254 (with "leaned")


LIKELY DEMOCRATIC STATES: (168 electoral votes)
California 55
New York 31
Illinois 21
New Jersey 15
Massachusetts 12
Maryland 10
Connecticut 7
Hawaii 4
Rhode Island 4
Delaware 3
Vermont 3
D.C. 3
TOTAL 168


BATTLEGROUND STATES LEANING DEMOCRATIC:
Michigan 17
Washington 11
Minnesota 10
Iowa 7
Maine 4

DEMOCRAT TOTAL 217 (with "leaned" battlegrounds)


THE BATTLEGROUNDS LEFT OVER:

Pennsylvania 21
Ohio 20
Wisconsin 10
Oregon 7
New Mexico 5
New Hampshire 4

TOTAL 67

NEEDED TO WIN: 270 electoral votes

[fdr_hst_fan]

1. Can you REALLY trust

ABC? After all, they're STILL running an all-Reagan crawl on GMA! C'mon now-the man's in the ground, for Pete's sake! Unless they're actually propagandizing for Dubya by running Ray-gun's bio.

[troublemaker]

2. WTF? Why is WV in the "BATTLE GROUND STATES LEANING REPUBLICAN"?

[Mz Pip]

3. I don't think

Florida will go to Bush.

I saw a news segment on Florida and the African American communities are doing voter registrating and voter information. Lots of work is being dopne and it is expected to pay off.

Also the Cuban American community is turning on the Chimp. He thought he was making them happy by limiting the amount of money that could be sent to Cuba. He forgot to consider that many Cuban Americans are helping to support families in Cuba and limiting their contributions was not a smart move.

New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Wisconsin went to Gore. Can't see those people crossing over to Bush. That makes no sense.

So really all we need to do is keep the states we won last time and win Florida. I think it's doable.

MzPip
:dem:

[LiberalFighter]

33. They need to do more than that

They need to cover each leg from now til the election.

Every Democratic voter needs to vote.
Every Democratic voter needs avoid being prevented from voting.
Every Democratic voter needs to make sure that every Democrat that they know vote.
Every Democratic voter needs to write letters to the editor encouraging others to vote for Kerry and why gw* is a mistake.

[Nightjock]

4. That's a load of bullspit

I have seen nothing but polls showing Kerry handily winning the electoral vote.
And I have seen nothing but worried looks on Repug faces.

[Beetwasher]

5. First of All, with the Exception of Ohio, All the Battleground "Left Over"

States should almost certainly go Dem. Second of all, VA should be considered a BG Lean Repub, not a Likely. In the BG Lean Repub, I think AZ, FL and WV should be removed and put in "battleground left over".

[dolstein]

6. Sorry, but that's Bullsh*t

New Hampshire, a traditionally Republican state that Bush carried in 2004 will "almost certainly go Dem"?

New Mexico, a state Gore carried by only a few hundred votes, will "almost certainly go Dem"?

Oregon and Pennsylvania, states where Kerry and Bush have traded leads in the polls, will "almost certainly go Dem"?

Honestly, why don't you just save yourself the trouble and assume that the White House will "almost certainly go Dem"?

[aquart]

7. 2000 ain't a good indicator for 2004.

Just for starters.

[Beetwasher]

8. The Only Bullshit

Is yours...I'm looking at the recent polling trends, what are you looking at, your ass? That's why I use qualifiers like "ALMOST Certainly" and I didn't say DEFINITELY. You do know the difference right and how that affects what I said? Maybe you disagree, but it doesn't make what I said bullshit. Go back and wake up on the right side of the bed.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dolstein]

25. Please direct your anger at the L.A. Times

Their compilation of state polls results offers absolutely no support for your claim that these states are almost certain to go for Kerry (unless, by "almost certain" you really mean "just might").

[Beetwasher]

28. Actually

With the exception of Wisconsin in that poll, which is an outlier in light of other polls I've seen, I'd say that poll does support my thinking on the matter. Those states will almost certainly go Kerry, Wisconsin included, regardless of what this particular poll says about WI, unless you think that somehow all the undecideds will break for Bush and Nader will garner the percentages implied in those polls, both assumptions I highly doubt. Your free feel to be pessimistic though, historical data is on my side and there are a lot of undecideds. You have, well, your blowhard opinion.

Somehow it eludes your pomposity that your opinion is not necessarily the correct one. Go figure.

[dolstein]

31. Actually, you are wrong . . . again

You said the following:

". . . with the exception of Ohio, ll the Battleground "Left Over" States should almost certainly go Dem."

Here is what the LA Times says about those battleground states:

Pennsylvania (Marin of error: 3.7%)
Kerry 44
Bush 41
Nader 6

Wisconsin (Margin of error: 4%)
Bush 44
Kerry 42
Nader 2

Oregon (Margin of error: 4%)
Kerry 44
Bush 39
Nader 4

New Mexico (Margin of error: 4%)
Bush 46%
Kerry 45%
Nader 3%

New Hampshire (Margin of error: 4%)
Bush 46
Kerry 46
Nader 2

You say that, with the exception of the Wisconin poll, the LA Times article generally supports your position. In fact, of all the states you said would "almost certainly" go for Kerry, Kerry leads in only two -- Pennsylvania and Oregon -- and only in Oregon does his lead exceed the margin of error (just barely).

Now if you had attempted to argue that Kerry MIGHT carry all of these states, I wouldn't have disputed this. While personally I find it highly unlikely that Kerry would "run the table," so to speak, he's certainly within striking distance. But you made a very different claim -- you claimed that these states would almost certainly go for Kerry. There is simply no evidence to support this claim, and I quite justiably called you on this. That's not pomposity, that's simply the truth, and sometimes the truth hurts. One would hope that you'd learn to accept the truth with some grace, but now you've gone and made matters worse for yourself by stubbornly insisting that the LA Times supports your position, even though, as I have just demonstrated, it clearly does not.

There's an old saying in the law -- if the law is on your side, pound on the law. If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If neither this on your side, pound on the table. You're pounding on the table right now.

[Beetwasher]

34. Doltsteins Opinions Are Truth?

Not in this universe.

I know exactly what I said and I stand by it. Given history and trends, those states will almost certainly go Kerry. They might not all go Kerry, that's always a possbility, but I highly doubt it, which is why I use the qualifier 'almost'. You see, I disagree w/ you, I think it's highly unlikely that Kerry won't win all those states.

Let me give you a clue Sherlock: On internet discussion boards, especially DU, people give their opinions on these types of things. The states I mentioned will almost certainly go Kerry. That's what I think and it's backed up by this poll and historical trends and data because the majority of undecided voters will almost certainly go for Kerry. Or do you dispute that too?

I'd make a wager w/ you about it, but given your track record of intellectual dishonesty, I don't trust you'd pay up.

Ahh, bullshit semantic parsing at it's finest! Keep it up, maybe one day you'll convince someone your opinions actually have merit and are the only correct ones, but I doubt it.

"The opinion of an obnoxious twit, no matter what he thinks, will never be more than the opinion of an obnoxious twit"

[dolstein]

36. You're the one who tried to pass off (uninformed) opinion for fact

You chose to the sweeping statement that that all of remaining toss-up states identified by ABC News (those not leaning Republican or Democrat) were "almost certain" to go Dem. I pointed out, quite appropriately, that this statement was completely unsupported by fact. You disagreed, and sought to portray the LA Times article as supporting your claims. I quite appropriately pointed out that the LA Times did NOT support your claims. You have yet to actually back up your statement with polling information or other historical data. You claim this support exists, but you don't present it. Instead, you choose to make personal insults.

[Beetwasher]

37. Well Then, You Can Now Put Up Or Shut Up

Where did I ever claim my opinion was fact? Put up or shut up. You are the one making that claim, not me. Show me where I tried to pass off my opinion as fact. You can't because I didn't. I stated my interpretation and my opinion on the ABC categorizations of certain states. I used qualifiers in my statements that any reasonable person would understand. I made no absolute statements. I used terms like "should almost certainly" and "I think" for a reason. Just because you like to delve into bullshit semantic parsing for your own demented reasons doesn't mean I think my opinions are claims of fact. They aren't, and I never claimed they were, as much as you would like that to be so. Your argument hinges on me stating my opinion is a fact. Too bad for you, I didn't do that, nor would I ever. Unlike you, I recognize that people may disagree w/ my opinions and have their own on certain topics.

Is this statement opinion, or fact:

"Nader will deliver New Hampshire to Bush
The Republicans aren't paying him good money for nothing."

See, I would never state something like that so categorically. As far as I'm concerned, it's stupid to do so. I would use qualifiers in that sentence. Some people, usually pompous, egotistical blowhards, might posit that as a claim of something factual and expect the world to conform to their opinion of reality. Not me. That's why I use qualifiers. But, to each his own.

[dolstein]

38. Now that you have essentially conceded the argument . . .

you try to change the topic by bringing up something I said in an unrelated post. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not going to take the bait.

Unless you are actually willing to back up your claim that the toss-up states identified by ABC News are almost certain to go for Kerry, I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion.

[Beetwasher]

39. I Conceded Nothing, My Statement Stands

I still think those states will almost certainly go to Kerry. I can delineate several reasons for my opinion and have actually done so already. Here they are again, w/ additional reasons: Those states are dead heats right now but the majority of undecideds will almost certainly go Kerry according to historical data. Historical data from the last election has those states voting Dem (w/ NH being the exception, I left OH out of my previous statement) and I see no reason for that to change this time and feel quite confident that NH, being close to Kerry's home turf will also go Dem. Historically speaking those states are trending to become MORE Democratic in general. Most polls have Bush trending downward in approvals and support. Kerry has hardly started to campaign yet. This close to an election for the incumbent to be in this position (behind the challenger) is bad news, especially in those states. Lot's more bad news for Bush is coming, including possible Plame indictments, more torture revelations, F911 etc. Therefore, IMO (ALERT FOR BRAIN DEAD MORONS AND BLOWHARDS: THIS IS OPINION AS NOTED BY THE IMO) those states will almost certainly go Kerry.

If I were you, I wouldn't continue the discussion either since you have no point except to parse semantics and claim your opinions are facts.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

24. Oregon

actually probably is a good bet for Kerry. The state's demographics show an influx of eastern and CA liberals, and the local economy has been in the toilet since 9/11.

The rest, I agree, are mischaracterized as being likely Dem. Kerry may do well in NH from the local slopover effect, as well as the large number of expat Massachusettians living along the southern tech corridor.

[dolstein]

26. Bush leads in the most recent poll

Just check the latest threat on the LA times article.

Oregon barely went for Gore last time around. Nader could possibly do better this time around, especially if he aggressively outflanks Kerry on the Iraq war.

I think Oregon is likely to remain a toss-up state until the bitter end.

[Beetwasher]

29. I Don't Know What Poll You Were Reading

Oregon
Moore Information (R). May 31-June 1, 2004. N=500 registered voters statewide. MoE ± 4:

Bush 39%
Kerry 44%
Nader 4%
Unsure 13%

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-polldatapage.htmlstory#Oregon

Did you even read it?

[TexasSissy]

10. Bummer, man. Popular vote again, but a loss again?

Say it ain't so!

[KittyWampus]

11. It Ain't So!

O8)

[janx]

13. Kerry's going to have to do something novel and unexpected

if we're to avoid another close election.

[dolstein]

17. Winning a majority of the popular vote would be novel and unexpected

I don't know how many DU'ers are alive in 1976, but you'd have to go back that far to find a Democrat who won a majority of the popular vote.

Of course, thanks to Ralph "Seriously, I'm going to take votes away from Bush, not Kerry" Nader, Kerry isn't likely to win a majority of the popular vote.

[janx]

18. Gore won a majority of the popular vote, didn't he?

Anyway, I fully appreciate your point, but I was talking about the fact that Kerry needs to do something novel and unexpected in order to garner more support. And he needs to do it fairly soon.

I hope he does.

[dolstein]

20. No, he didn't

He got around 48% of the popular vote. Clinton got around 49% of the popular vote in 1996.

As for doing something novel and unexpected, I wouldn't count on it. He's been a senator for 20 years. He's got a track record. He's not going to change now. The only opportunity to shake up the race will come with his VP selection, but with McCain out, I don't think the choice will be a huge surprise.

[July]

14. Well, a Republican who's keeping track says Kerry 316, Bush 222

Check him out at www.electionprojection.com . Very interesting site. He updates as new polls come out.

He's got all the "left over" battlegrounds above in the Kerry column, though some are in the "Really Close" (less than 5% lead) category.

Of the battlegrounds "leaning Republican" above, he gives Florida to Kerry (really close). He has Arizona and Missouri recently moved from really close Kerry to really close Bush.

Following this guy's analysis, and only as of today, Bush has to win every single state he won the last time to have it in the bag, or win most and steal some Gore states (yeah, joke intended). If he can't steal any Gore states and loses 10 electoral votes from the 2000 states, he's done (among the close states, losing any one of Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Ohio, Florida, or a combination of smaller states adding up to 10+ -- any two of Arkansas, Colorado, West Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Louisiana). According to the guy at electionprojection, right now Bush has "lost" four states (Ohio, Nevada, Florida, and New Hampshire), without any Gore state gains.

Of course, Bush could get a Gore state gain such as Pennsylvania, perhaps, and then Kerry might need some Bush state gains. But I like the analysis, and the guy while very pro-Bush, calls it quite differently than ABC does.

[Beetwasher]

15. Actually, I Think This Guy Is Being Too Generous To Kerry

Unfortunately, I wouldn't give FL. to Kerry and not because he doesn't have the majority of support there, I think he does. I just think the Jeb Bush machine has FL. "wrapped up".

I don't think Bush has lost Ohio either. That's THE battleground state this year, IMO.

[Padraig18]

16. I agree with you about Florida.

While I would love to win it, I'd make sure my strategy didn't depend on doing so, and for precisely the reason you state.

[July]

21. I think I wasn't clear.

The guy at electionprojection is tracking polls and categorizing states according to which candidate is ahead. Obviously, nothing's carved in stone at this point. That's why he's moving states as polls change. The "states lost" list used to include Arizona and Missouri because Kerry had a small lead in polls; when they changed, they were moved into the really close Bush list.

Bush hasn't lost Ohio, of course. But, pollwise, it's a loss according to this guy at this time. Same story with Florida, where he is considering polls rather than the likelihood of another stolen election.

The most interesting part of the site is the "really close" data. There are a number of 2000 Bush states that are very close, and I take that as a good sign.

Even if Bush wins or steals Florida, he has to take everything else he won before -- or gain some new states -- to succeed. Doesn't look very simple right now.

[Beetwasher]

22. Not You

Your clarity is not at issue! ;-) I'm actually familiar w/ the site, I guess I disagree with his categorizations. I wouldn't use the terms "win" or "lose" at this point I guess, whenever a poll switches leads, but rather I would categorize them as leaning this way or that and the lean changing...

The interesting and encouraging thing about the race so far is the amount of swing state polls in which the leads are within the MOE and the amount of undecideds in those polls. There seems to be a core of around 10% undecided in a lot of the swing states with the polling in the mid 40's for both candidates. What's encouraging is that the majority of undecideds will, per historical data, most likely swing to Kerry...

[Nazgul35]

19. I guess the fact that

these states are leaning with a sitting incumbent Repug Pres. doesn't cause them to consider how bad it is Bush baby...

Florida 27
Missouri 11
Arizona 10
Louisiana 9
Colorado 9
Arkansas 6
Nevada 5
West Virginia 5

But let's report it that way anyway...

[fujiyama]

23. Funny

but those states where Bush has a very small lead are "battlegrounds -likely Bush states", while those that have shown small leads for Kerry are "battlegrounds left over".

What BS. Every battleground listed in that category has shown a small lead for Kerry.

And Florida hasn't shown a lead one way or the other. Some have Bush ahead by a point. Others have Kerry. I don't think I've seen any with a clear lead one way or the other.

[Leilani]

27. I would agree with those numbers

And it is still too early to tell...

I think after both conventions, we will have a better idea.

Much will depend on Iraq & the economy.

[tom22]

30. Ohio is the ballgame

I think we are going to find out that Ohio is the ballgame. Every Republican President has carried it. With the economy hit hard, Kerry has a real shot. I think it's all about Ohio.

[otohara]

32. I'm Totally Depressed Now

think I'll go eat worms.

[SaveElmer]

35. Big Friggin Deal

First of all...5 of the 6 left Gore took which Kerry should be able to take. Second, to say that Florida, Missouri, and West Virginia are leaning Republican is ridiculous. Those states are truly tied, and in fact, the last polls I saw had Kerry leading in all three slightly.

It's just ABC's way of slicing things...nothing has changed.