More bad news for Shrub

“Posted on Thu, Aug. 19, 2004





John Baer | Electoral votes show Kerry way out in front


WANT A GOOD picture of where the race for president stands today?

Might surprise you.

Forget about the many national polls showing a close up-and-down John Kerry/George Bush contest.

State polls are fun, including two new ones in Pennsylvania, the Keystone Poll and the Quinnipiac Poll. But, heck, that's just one state.

No siree, what you need is a look at all the states, but state-by-state, so you can figure out electoral votes.

You might recall from the last election the Electoral College determines the president.

Al Gore beat Bush by half-a-million votes (543,895 to be exact), but Bush won the presidency by winning more electoral votes - the number of votes apportioned each state on the basis of population.

And this number, when projected from polls done within each state, shows a race very different from numbers in national samples.

Two Web sites, one pro-Kerry, one pro-Bush, are tracking state polls, then assigning corresponding electoral votes and showing results on color-coded maps.

Both show Kerry way ahead.

On the pro-Kerry site, www.electoral-vote.com, for example, Kerry has 317 electoral votes (270 are needed to win) and Bush 202.

On the pro-Bush site, www.electionprojection.com, Kerry has 327 and Bush 211.

This is based on strong Kerry leads in large states such as New York, Illinois and California, which together total 107 electoral votes, and weak Kerry leads in key states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, which count for another 68 electoral votes.

Kerry also holds slim leads in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri, which offer a combined 48 electoral votes.

Solace, I'd suggest for the Kerry camp.

Especially when contrasted to national polls offering solace for either camp.

This month, a Zogby Poll has Kerry up 7 percent; Gallup has Bush up 3; Time has Kerry up 7; and CNN/USA Today has Bush up 4.

How do pollsters like tracking the electoral count?

"Oh, it's a rip," says Pennsylvania Keystone Poll director G. Terry Madonna. "They use real numbers from real polls" and get a "more valid" measure of the race than national polling.

Clay Richards of the Quinnipiac Poll is concerned that not all polling in all states is solid, but says, "The idea is sound."

Predictably, the campaigns aren't sold.

Pennsylvania Kerry director Tony Podesta says, "It's graphically interesting, clever, well-done [but]...it's August and too early to order inauguration tickets."

Kevin Madden of the Bush campaign says, "It's an interesting snapshot analysis but it fluctuates, too, and the most important poll is on Election Day... we're more concerned with getting our grass-roots voting-day efforts in place."

Does this stuff mean much at this point? Probably not. Things happen. Things change.

But a look at the only numbers that count, electoral votes in key states, gives a better picture than single polls of where things stand.

And today that picture favors Kerry a whole lot more than President Bush.”

“Mmmmm... Texas barbecue.”

“Bush is still going to get a Bump from the RNC, and he hasn't taken his best shot yet.

The Dems made a tactical mistake having their convention so early, IMHO.”

“You have a point, Ped. And you know that the RNC convention, being held in NYC, and near 9/11 is not coincidental. But, the election is still over two months away from that and you know how the convention bounces are usually temporary in nature anyway. So, it may all come back to similar conditions as now, barring any events or unforseen circumstances...”

“The precise numbers are less important than the fact that the gap in the electoral college is far wider than in the popular vote. That is a significant difference.

And, it's worth saying, this is a snapshot of how things are at this point in the process. As the story points out, there is still a lot of time to go.”

“Thanks for the update, Geo.

Personally, I think most people have made up their minds and the GOP convention won't do a thing to change that. All it will do is re-enforce the opinions we already have.”

“It ain't all bad. The U of C has brought out their findings in the poles here in Ohio and it's a dead heat here in the Must Win to Win State. We may have some useful idiots like Buddha Bush here but I am confident my fellow Buckeyes will do the right thing and make Ohio Bush Country.”

“You mean make Ohio Bush League.”

“Temper your hate Geo. It just makes ya look like an angry old man. :)”

“If Kerry wins, I'm gonna hit the woods and go backpacking. Wait, I already do.”

“Well Buck, I for one can say this…and you can mark my words here and now on this…if sKerry wins I’m gonna…I’m gonna…well, I’m gonna go on with my happy life. :)”

“"Temper your hate Geo. It just makes ya look like an angry old man. :)"
Nigal

Coming from somebody with an irrational fear of John Kerry, whose every word about the man drips venom, you've given me a good laugh Nigal.”

“Glad to be of service. For a second I was going to say I don't 'fear' him but then I realized that, yes in fact, I do fear him.”

“It's the double-talk, two-step!!

Grab a partner and doosie dooo!

The Republicans are putting on a shooooo!”

“Excellent! This is going to be fun.


BOO!

Heheheheee!”

“Come on people, gather round...

time for that famous dance...

It's called "Let's attack Kerry cuz we have no stance!"...”

“Grab your liberal round and round,
Kick ‘em in the balls and throw on the ground!
Grab your partner dosey doe,
New Jersey’s governor likes it in his hole!

Sorry guys, that’s all I got. LOL!”

“No stance? Ha! If there's one thing about Bush, he takes a firm stance. You can love or hate where he stands, but there's no doubt where he stands. Kerry is the one with no defined stance. He dances. And he can't even stick to one defined dance. He changes his dance according to whoever's on the floor. Some folks like that, but for me personally, I don't. Bush is gettin' my vote in November. But you Kerry lovers, don't worry, I live in CA. Unless Kerry does something utterly ridiculous, like say the U.S. Constitution is more important than the United Nations Charter, then he's a sure win in CA.”

“http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

Bush Gains Since 2000
NONE

Bush Losses Since 2000
Florida
New Hampshire
Ohio
Missouri
Nevada”

“Another republican in the Senate from Nebraska is giving in to the truthout.org and thenation.com predictions. Whooops, we f''''' up on invading Iraq. Doug Bereuter from a primarily red state is saying, yup. Our commander in chief is not fit for command.”

“If Bush wins in November, the Dems will kick and scream and complain that the election should've been held in August when Kerry had the lead. Damn Republicans. So unfair.”

“Oh yeah, Buck. You got us all figured out. That's exactly what everyone is thinking...


(rolling eyes in disbelief)”

“Hey Buck, Would you like to make the same wager Bison made with me?”

“Well, I was thinking that too, tree, but I'm a Republican and not a Dem.”

“Tree, dude, I'm keeeding. Relax you guys. Have fun with dis schtuff. Neither guy is that far off from the other, no major changes will happen in your life despite all their goofy, toothless, politics-as-usual campaign promises. Things just go on as normal. Life is good®.”

“ok, Buck (Tree says as he loosens his grip on Buck's lapel and lowers him to the ground) :)”

“Everytime Congress makes a joke, it's a law. And everytime they make a law, it's a joke.

Will Rogers”

“no major changes will happen in your life despite all their goofy, toothless, politics-as-usual campaign promises. Things just go on as normal


Not true. Especially if you have a family member who is of draft age. This matters.”

“Hi Phaed! I have no clue what your wager with Bison is/was, nor do I care to wager about anything.

These politicians are like pull-string dolls. They're so predictable and they just hash out the same old political jargon, year after year. They all will make America a better place because... blah blah blah. Not much really changes, which is probably a good thing. We have three big balancing branches of gov't to make sure nothing radical happens. It's all good. The most important thing to me is the appointment of federal judges.”

“Phaed, Kerry said he would've sent our family members to war regardless, even knowing what we do now. He voted for the Iraq war then, and he said he still would now. There's no difference.”

“That's not true, Buck. He said he would vote to give the president power to go to war if necessary. He has also said that invading Iraq should have been the last option.

Having a congressional authorization for military action was important to get inspectors back into Iraq, for one thing.

Second, the appointment of judges is also important to me. I disagree with the tack this administration has taken in that regard as well.”

“Phaedrus, perhaps you missed Kerry's recent response to this when a reporter asked him (I think it was when he was at the Grand Canyon recently?) if, knowing what we do now, would he still have made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Kerry said yes, he would have. It pissed off a lot of anti-war Dems.”

“Buck, reread my post. They asked if he would have still cast his vote to give the president the power to use military force.”

“Appointing sane moderate Supreme Court Judges and not eliminating the inheritance tax for estates over 5 million would be enough for me.”

“"If Kerry wins, I'm gonna hit the woods and go backpacking. Wait, I already do."
Buck
01:36:12 PM

Good idea Buck. I'll do the same, whether its to escape or to celebrate. And the trails will be there no matter who wins.”

“Phaed, read the link. Why are so many Dems and libs upset at his comments? It's the buzz talk right now with the talking heads.

If we know what we do right now, that according to liberal claims that Iraq posed zippo threat and had no WMDs, why would Kerry still give Bush the thumbs-up for war? Why would Kerry give Bush the "authority" to use force against Iraq if Iraq posed no threat and had no WMDs as was previously claimed? With no WMDs and no threat, Kerry would STILL give Bush the okay to use military force BECAUSE Iraq posed a threat and had WMDs all over the place? Come on.

Do you realize what the vote for the use of military force against Iraq was based on?

Here it is again.

'The key sections of the joint congressional resolution stated that Iraq posed “a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region” because it was “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.”'

'The resolution continued: “...the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself.”'

If THIS was the reason Kerry gave authorization for Bush to go to war, that Iraq posed all these threats to the United States, and he now believes that we were manipulated and deceived and none of this materialized as we NOW KNOW, looking back Kerry would STILL have given Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq?

Knowing what we do now, even I would look for different premises to invade Iraq.”

“Is it just me or has TT become devoid of any sense of political humor whatsoever?”

“Buck, your original statement was that Kerry would have invaded Iraq were he president. I can't see where you get that from.

Kerry has continually noted that a vote for the congressional approval of military action does not mean the president HAS to invade a country.”

“and not eliminating the inheritance tax for estates over 5 million would be enough for me."
pedxing
05:59:54 PM
08/19/04

You mean the inheritance tax was just for the rich?

Hmmmmmmm. I believe somehow I might have been mislead about this. Now if only I could remember who or how...”

“Kerry said that knowing what he knows now he would still vote yes. However, did the President uphold the law or break it?


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

“Phaed, read the resolution Kerry supported that gave Bush authorization to use military force. It specifically said Iraq was a threat to the United States. If Kerry doesn't think Iraq was a threat to the United States today, knowing what we do now at this time, why would he vote to STILL give a President authorization to invade a non-threatening Iraq? I don't get it? It's got many Dems flustered too. They think he's catering to the undecideds who tend to support the war.

Apparently you're not reading the link I provided and you don't seem to care to comment on their points, which are very valid.



"The resolution continued: “...the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself.”

"How can anyone say he still would have voted for such a resolution when the entire world now knows there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor any collaboration between the Saddam Hussein regime and the Al Qaeda terrorist network?"


Phaed, plain and simple... if Kerry, knowing what he does now about Iraq not having WMDs, nor being a threat to the United States, why would he STILL, RIGHT NOW, give Bush the authority to invade Iraq? It's ridiculous. It's the "right thing to do" to give a President the authority to invade a country on a false premise? I ain't buyin' it, and neither are many libs.”

“Is it just me or has TT become devoid of any sense of political humor whatsoever?

Yeah, emotions are at a fever pitch for the Kerry-ites now - I can't imagine what they'll be like in October.

Still, you can count on me to be a joke.”

“Oh, and here's a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory for you:

If Bush remains so far behind Kerry, say in October, then he's going to need something really BIG to reverse the trend, right? Well, who's in charge of national security? The pres! What if - and believe me this is a hypothetical - national security was suddenly lax in the late weeks of October and a terrorist cell manages to make a big strike on the US homeland? That's a BIG EVENT! Historically such events have rallied strong support behind the president - a rally that just might change the election dynamics at the last moment. Certainly the terrorist strike can't happen before October, as once the initial patriotism wanes, there will be a strong wave of criticism at the lax security. But, right before the election....

So, here it is:

Terrorist strike in Late October: Powers that be are trying to ensure a Bush victory.

Terrorist strike in Early September: AQ is trying to ensure a Kerry victory.

No terrorist strike: then this theory is just another Straw-Mutt.







Boy, I better watch out for black helicopters after posting this stuff...”

“Another scenario: any terrorist strike and the voters hold Bush accountable for taking the heat off Al Qaeda while invading Iraq.”

“

Phew!”

“Nice play Shakespeare.”

“Looks to me like Kerry was thinking that the Bush administration knew its ass from a WMD, which turns out not to be the case. "Faulty" intelligence being the case, why would you fault Kerry for standing behind the President in a time of war?

In other words, if Shrub and his pals hadn't screwed up, you would not have this opportunity to rant at Kerry.

Duh!”