Way OT-- Electoral Breakdown

www.electoral-vote.com, www.electoral-vote.com/info/graph.html

For the Bushies out there, try www.electionprojection.com, which matches
the former almost peak to peak, but hasn't been updated since early this
week.

There's been a 20 point shift from "strong Kerry" to "weak Kerry", but in
recent weeks, MI, and most recently OH and FL, have gone from pink to light
blue.

The Republican Convention is yet to happen, but it looks like the Sept and
Oct job reports will tell the story

Scott

ojunk (George Adams) wrote in
:

I guess it depends on the sampling method used. I saw a similar thing
on the internet earlier this week, ( I don't remember where ), that
showed Bush ahead by over 100 electoral votes. I strongly suspect
their sample was skewed heavily to the right.


Well, out of electoral-vote.com, electionprojection.com, federalreview.com,
coldheartedtruth.com, and Dale's EC breakdown, all of them have Kerry ahead
by at least 60 electoral votes. If you count their smallest separations
(the close coin tosses, or 5%), the least amount of electoral votes Kerry
gets on any of these sites is 295 (except for coldheartedtruth, which
considers every state below a 10% difference to be a battleground state),
and the most is around 316 (from coldheartedtruth).

The Federal Review Election Simulation (right-wing site)
http://www.federalreview.com/evsim.htm of this week gives Kerry a 72%
chance of winning, and that site seems to come from the right.

The NY Times has Kerry and 168, and Bush 190, but they won't assign swing
states, and are the only site I found that still have Michigan as a swing
state and VA as a leaning republican state. They have some pretty sure-
thing states listed as swing, and some iffy states listed as republican.
Looks to me like the "liberal press" is trying to make this look like a
close race.

Hard to tell how the economy is doing here until Kodak is finished laying
people off. Jobs have been flat here, and manufacturing seems to not be
recovering in the region. http://www.sagarmatha.com/jobs2.gif tells an
interesting story.

Scott

ojunk (George Adams) wrote in
:

I guess it depends on the sampling method used. I saw a similar thing
on the internet earlier this week, ( I don't remember where ), that
showed Bush ahead by over 100 electoral votes. I strongly suspect
their sample was skewed heavily to the right.


Well, out of electoral-vote.com, electionprojection.com, federalreview.com,
coldheartedtruth.com, and Dale's EC breakdown, all of them have Kerry ahead
by at least 60 electoral votes. If you count their smallest separations
(the close coin tosses, or 5%), the least amount of electoral votes Kerry
gets on any of these sites is 295 (except for coldheartedtruth, which
considers every state below a 10% difference to be a battleground state),
and the most is around 316 (from coldheartedtruth).

The Federal Review Election Simulation (right-wing site)
http://www.federalreview.com/evsim.htm of this week gives Kerry a 72%
chance of winning, and that site seems to come from the right.

The NY Times has Kerry and 168, and Bush 190, but they won't assign swing
states, and are the only site I found that still have Michigan as a swing
state and VA as a leaning republican state. They have some pretty sure-
thing states listed as swing, and some iffy states listed as republican.
Looks to me like the "liberal press" is trying to make this look like a
close race.

Hard to tell how the economy is doing here until Kodak is finished laying
people off. Jobs have been flat here, and manufacturing seems to not be
recovering in the region. http://www.sagarmatha.com/jobs2.gif tells an
interesting story.

Scott

In article ,
says...
The NY Times has Kerry and 168, and Bush 190, but they won't assign swing
states, and are the only site I found that still have Michigan as a swing
state and VA as a leaning republican state. They have some pretty sure-
thing states listed as swing, and some iffy states listed as republican.
Looks to me like the "liberal press" is trying to make this look like a
close race.

Maybe it's not wanting to demonstrate that the electoral college
can be a blowout with a close popular vote?
- Ken

In article ,
says...
The NY Times has Kerry and 168, and Bush 190, but they won't assign swing
states, and are the only site I found that still have Michigan as a swing
state and VA as a leaning republican state. They have some pretty sure-
thing states listed as swing, and some iffy states listed as republican.
Looks to me like the "liberal press" is trying to make this look like a
close race.

Maybe it's not wanting to demonstrate that the electoral college
can be a blowout with a close popular vote?
- Ken

Scott Seidman wrote:

The Republican Convention is yet to happen, but it looks like the Sept and
Oct job reports will tell the story

It's not the WHOLE story. There's also the question of how many blacks
Jeb Bush succeeds in purging from the roles (while not touching
Hispanics) because they have the same name as a felon somewhere in the
country, whether there will be fraud in the electronic voting machines,
what October surprise Karl Rove can dream up, etc.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Scott Seidman wrote:

The Republican Convention is yet to happen, but it looks like the Sept and
Oct job reports will tell the story

It's not the WHOLE story. There's also the question of how many blacks
Jeb Bush succeeds in purging from the roles (while not touching
Hispanics) because they have the same name as a felon somewhere in the
country, whether there will be fraud in the electronic voting machines,
what October surprise Karl Rove can dream up, etc.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

George Adams wrote:

The polls that seemed most accurate in the 2000 election, were those which
sampled "likely voters".

A big intangible that the pools don't measure well, especially when they
focus on "likely voters," is that the Democratic base is more energized
and united than ever in recent memory (largely because they detest Bush
and his extremist Neocon administration and its miserable record), while
the Republican base is demoralized and on the defensive.

Republicans tend to vote more reliably than Democrats, but this year
might be different.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

George Adams wrote:

The polls that seemed most accurate in the 2000 election, were those which
sampled "likely voters".

A big intangible that the pools don't measure well, especially when they
focus on "likely voters," is that the Democratic base is more energized
and united than ever in recent memory (largely because they detest Bush
and his extremist Neocon administration and its miserable record), while
the Republican base is demoralized and on the defensive.

Republicans tend to vote more reliably than Democrats, but this year
might be different.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

csmonitor.com has a very informative exposé on the Neocons.

http://csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?s=entg2

Mark

"rw" wrote in message
...
George Adams wrote:

The polls that seemed most accurate in the 2000 election, were those which
sampled "likely voters".

A big intangible that the pools don't measure well, especially when they
focus on "likely voters," is that the Democratic base is more energized
and united than ever in recent memory (largely because they detest Bush
and his extremist Neocon administration and its miserable record), while
the Republican base is demoralized and on the defensive.

Republicans tend to vote more reliably than Democrats, but this year
might be different.