A Little Electoral College Magic of Our Own?

[jefferson_dem]

I'm starting to think that another popular vote / electoral college vote inversion is a real possibility yet again. Only this time, our guy wins! It really wouldn't take much. There is preliminary evidence in recent EC maps (with Kerry up slightly) versus recent national polls (with Chimp up a little). Much of chimp's so-called bounce has been in the red states that he already owns.

Imagine: no inversion in 120 years but now two elections in a row, the popular vote winner is not seated as president. One wonders how the militia-wackball right would react if they get "stiffed" this time. And if there would be a larger public outcry than we saw in 2000.

Hey, whatever it takes to "WIN", people!

:bounce:

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. I want both the Popular and Electoral Vote.

I want a mandate!!!

[jefferson_dem]

3. YES INDEED! Mandate! Fuck, i want to chew up and spit out chimpy

like a freaking wad of gum. I'm just sayin'...the possibility is clearly there.

And the claim of "mandate" is so subjective. Look at what kind of damage this guy did when he was merely installed by the five black- robed tyrants.

[mvd]

5. Me too

I know that when Kerry wins (he has to!) that he wouldn't govern like he'd have a landslide if this scenario turns out. I don't want Kerry to go further to the right.

[Walt Starr]

4. Mandate, Schmandate, they'll still trot out the county maps

to show that they have support everywhere there are very few actual people.

[jefferson_dem]

7. As if acreage matters...

"My guy got more landmass than yours."

:freak:

[DarthDem]

2. Heh

Oh, we would suddenly have the airwaves saturated with people you've never heard of - - mostly constitutional "experts" from the Federalist Society - - claiming that the EC should be abolished immediately, and some, of course, claiming that Kerry was an illegitimate president. There would be no probing rejoinders from the Wolf & Judys of the world such as: "Well, was * illegitimate too, then?"

[demwing]

6. Perhaps all things do happen for a reason?

And 2000 happened for them so that 2004 can happen for America.

Maybe Al Gore really "took one for the team." If so, he'll go down in history as the greatest President that never was.

[jefferson_dem]

8. And what a dignified concession he offered to the nation.

But really...who else here looks at the soft way the Dems handled the vote certification with great regret. Farenheit 9-11 reminds us of that. Fucking bastards took that good will and shoved it down our throats. Never forgive!

[demwing]

10. I never will

I still gring my teeth and give myself a migraine, just thinking about it.

[Hippo_Tron]

12. Yea, the vote certification was a mess...

If the tables had been turned, you know that Rick Santorum, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, and all of the others would've been up there protesting the Florida votes.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. I highly doubt that Bush will win the popular vote

Kerry's will win the popular vote because there will be mass turnout in California in New York. The problem is that these are both safe blue states and we need mass turnout in other places.

[Comicstripper]

11. That type of election would make me feel icky inside...

Sure, it'd be ironic in an O'Henry sort of way.
And it sure would make me laugh.
But if it happened to Kerry, he wouldn't make it to the White House. The GOP and the media would go nuts.

[mvd]

13. They'd need the Supreme Court IMO

And if the Supreme Court decided ANOTHER election, I certainly think there'd be unrest.

[papau]

14. Wash Post disagrees

Are only 10 states still "competitive states" (as suggested by Wash Post)


Does DU agree with Dan Balz of the Washington Post that only 10 states are still "competitive states"

Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia and New Hampshire, with West Virginia and Nevada major, major challenges for Kerry - more so than the other 8.

Are the other 11 "battleground states" really leaning too far to be called "competitive, because - per Baltz- we have -7 Leaning toward Bush which are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia - with 4 leaning toward Kerry which are: Maine, Michigan, Oregon and Washington.

And of the 10 that are still "competitive", the Bush team will be putting major money to win into Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin, while they view Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as states they can make Kerry work very hard to defend, and see West Virginia and Nevada as quite likely to go their way.

Is it really down to a huge effort to fight the above battle, while the winner of 2 out 3 of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio wins the election?