----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 12:16 AM Subject: 2004 Presidential Race Analysis
> Bush States Never in Doubt: > AK, UT, ID, MT, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, MS, AL, GA, SC, KY, IN > 133 EV's > About the closest State up here is Montana, which Clinton won once, thanks > only to a huge showing by Perot. Otherwise, these States are as solidly > Republican as it gets. > > Kerry States Never in Doubt: > HI, CA, IL, DC, MD, NY, VT, MA, CT, RI > 150 EV's > Republicans might have dreamed about California, but these States have all > become very reliably Democratic. > > Bush States That Were Thought About, But Never Really "In Play": > AR, LA, TN, NC, VA, > 54 EV's - 187 EV Total > Clinton/Gore gave the Democrats an opening in the South, but without a > hometown hero, there was really no shot in AR or LA. There was some > thought that Edwards might make Kerry competitive in the "New South" states > of NC and VA, but Edwards was a one-termer in NC and not really established > there, and the suburbs of DC and Charlotte will need a few more cycles of > growth before they reverse their old South routes. > > Kerry States That Were Thought About, But Never Really "In Play" > WA, DE, NJ > 29 EV's - 179 Total I just did a little thought experiment. Lets assume that the electoral college did not favor small states, but treated voters in large and small states equally. If that were the case, and electoral college votes were assigned according to population, then Kerry would be leading 188 to 178 according to John's analysis (instead of trailing 179 to 187). So, according to John's analysis, there is a 19 electoral vote bias for the Republicans compared in the sure and "never in doubt" states. In other words, if the vote from the "never in doubt" states for the two candidates are equal, the Republicans will have a 19 electoral vote advantage that must be overcome by the Democrats. Now, lets add the pretty sure states, as John did. That gives a Kerry lead of 228 to 211. This is drastically different from a Bush lead of 222 to 217...representing a 22 electoral vote advantage. If this voting pattern and the trend of close elections continue, we might have a number of times when the Democrat loses the election while getting more votes than any other candidate. Indeed, if Kerry wins the popular vote by less than 1%, I'd bet that it would be the _most likely_ outcome. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
