Dems Have Electoral College Advantage

[Bake]

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion/9299747.htm

The Democrats are in a strong position to regain the White House in 2004.

Take a glance at the Electoral College map. No matter how you slice it, the Democrats have the advantage.

"If you look at the states the Democrats carried in the last three presidential elections, that's 260 electoral votes," says Rice University political scientist Earl Black.

It takes 270 votes to win.

--snip--

To win a second term, Bush must keep everything he won in 2000.

Right now, that's highly doubtful. Winning West Virginia again is problematic. So is New Hampshire. That's a loss of nine electoral votes for Bush, and he's also trailing in other states he carried in 2000.

Among them is Ohio, a critical state. If Bush loses Ohio, the party's over.

--snip--end quote

THIS IS GREAT NEWS, PEOPLE!! REASON TO BE OPTIMISTIC, but not to let our guard down or rest easy. 98 more days to go. We need to stay after it!

Bake

[afraid_of_the_dark]

1. I wish that could help calm my nerves...

But I'm just so scared that Bush is going to be reelected. I keep trying not to imagine what kind of crazy nonsense he would be up to if he wasn't worried about reelection...

[lanparty]

2. A Franken caller echoed my sentiments today ...

This is pretty simple

1) Everyone who voted for Gore in 2000 will vote Kerry in 2004.
2) Half the people who voted Nader in 2000 will vote Kerry in 2004.
3) Buchanan voters were protest voters against Bush. Nothing about Bush's record would convince him that he's a "conservative".
4) Moderates who voted for Bush in 2000 are switching to Kerry in 2004.
5) Social conservatives who voted against Gore in 2000 because of Clinton's penis will likely switch back to the Democrats now that the Big Dog's dick is out of recent memory.
6) The Big Dog has been let off of his chain and will deliver Arkansas for sure.
7) Newly registered young voters will favor Kerry due to fear of being drafted by Bush.
8) The Diebold machines have been de-certified in Ohio, California and other places around the nation.


I'm personally pretty sure the election is in the bag. Bush is steadily losing a defensive battle. He hasn't picked up ANY support in ANY state. His approval numbers are at all time lows.

As Michael Moore pointed out, the political polls only care about "likely voters". They disregard the impact of voter registration drives and a new found concern for the health of the nation. They are also schewed against people who don't have land lines. There are two categories here. People who have lost their job and can't pay their phone bill and people who only use cell phones. Those who can't pay their phone bill due to layoff are DEFINITELY a prime Kerry demographic. Those younger people who choose to have a cell phone ONLY are typically younger people (young adults living with parents/no children and techno-savvy types who realize that use cable-modems and have no need for a telephone attached to their apartment.

The polls supposedly show a close race. But the polling models simply cannot account for individuals they cannot reach by traditional landline telephones. It also does not account for demographics of people who are just plane TOO BUSY or UNAVAILABLE to participate in lengthy phone polls.

The question isn't whether Kerry will win. It's whether it will be Kerry by a comfortable margin vs Kerry by a LANDSLIDE!!!!!

[AndyTiedye]

3. Would That It Were So

> 1) Everyone who voted for Gore in 2000 will vote Kerry in 2004.

Except for all the new FauxNews viewers. Every one a Bush* voter.

> 2) Half the people who voted Nader in 2000 will vote Kerry in 2004.

Nader is polling higher this year than in 2000. He could hurt us
at least as badly this time.

> 3) Buchanan voters were protest voters against Bush. Nothing about
> Bush's record would convince him that he's a "conservative".

Most of them will be voting for Bush* as there is no other candidate
on the right.

> 4) Moderates who voted for Bush in 2000 are switching to Kerry in
> 2004.

Some moderates, yes. Some not.

> 5) Social conservatives who voted against Gore in 2000 because of
> Clinton's penis will likely switch back to the Democrats now that
> the Big Dog's dick is out of recent memory.

They have the anti-abortion issue and gay marriage to keep them
voting Republican this time. Bush* has a lock on these voters.

> 6) The Big Dog has been let off of his chain and will deliver
> Arkansas for sure.

Arkansas is never a sure thing for the Democrats. We have a chance
there. That is all. It is a very conservative state.

> 7) Newly registered young voters will favor Kerry due to fear of
> being drafted by Bush.

Most are in still in denial. Still, registering these voters is
probably our best hope for victory.

> 8) The Diebold machines have been de-certified in Ohio, California
> and other places around the nation.

They weren't being used in California or Ohio in 2000 either.
They WILL be used in Florida, and unless http://www.truevotemd.org
is successful, they will be used in Maryland as well. We're not
counting on Florida anyway, but the loss of Maryland could be
crippling because everyone assumes we will win there.

We may still win this, but our party is in a far weaker position
than it was in 2000. We cannot take anything for granted.

[Bake]

4. If you haven't done so, read the full article

There are several states that went for Bush last time that we have a real shot at this year -- Ohio is the best example. Arkansas, maybe. Kentucky is even a possibility.

The point is, we're not going to lose any states we won in 2000, and all we have to do is pick up ONE STATE. JUST ONE.

Ohio? If we take Ohio, GAME OVER.

That's not a reason to "ease up" -- if anything, it's encouragement to work harder. The prize is within our grasp.

Bake

[AndyTiedye]

5. Ease Up? Hell NO! Crank it Up!

because we CANNOT assume that we will take all the states Gore took.

Maryland is in danger because of Diebold. If Bush* is within 20 points
there they will steal it.

We were robbed in Florida in 2000, and probably will be again in 2004.

We are losing ground in New Mexico according to the latest polls.
I have no idea why. That was a Gore state, but we could lose it.

Ohio seems to have swung back to Bush* again. Kerry got a negative
bounce there.

Minnesota is a lot closer than it should be. We cannot take it for
granted.

[ArkDem]

6. I wouldn't rely too heavily on 6