Ulcer Time

[Annie]

Granted it's early, but this is interesting. There are a lot of links. Real Clear Politics, scroll down a tad: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#6_7_04_1010



CALCULATING RASMUSSEN: ***Warning: we're about to engange in some serious speculation. All caveats to state polling data this far out from the election apply. In other words, taking any of this stuff too seriously until after Labor Day would be a mistake.***

As many of you know, Scott Rasmussen has unleashed a torrent of state polls over the past week, with more coming out this afternoon.

So far, Rasmussen has surveyed eight battleground states (AR, ME, MI, MN, MO, OH, OR, & PA) and 11 non-battleground states (AL, CA, GA, IL, NJ, NY, NC, OK, SC, TX, & VA).

For fun, I threw his results into the Wall Street Journal's new Electoral College Calculator and got the following tally: Bush 255, Kerry 199.

If you look Rasmussen's results in the battleground states, however, you see that three of the eight show a one-point margin (MO, OR, & PA) and one of them shows a two-point lead (OH). All four are currently in Bush's column but could easily go to Kerry, which would yield an electoral total of Kerry 258, Bush 196.

But going back, if you take Rasmussen's recent results as spot on (see the warning at the beginning of this post) and work from a base EC tally of 255 Bush and 199 Kerry, then add in the remaining battleground states based on the most recent legitimate poll (which excludes Zogby's online stuff) it would go like this: Arizona to Bush, Iowa to Kerry, New Hampshire to Kerry, Washington to Kerry, West Virginia to Bush.

Nevada, New Mexico and Florida are too close to call - but they wouldn't matter anyway because you'd already have a total of Bush 270, Kerry 231.

The linchpin to this whole scenario is Pennsylvania, where Rasmussen has Bush ahead by a point but other recent surveys have shown Kerry ahead by 3-5 points. If Kerry wins PA, the tally moves to Kerry 252, Bush 249. Nevada and New Mexico remain irrelevant, and Florida becomes ground zero - again.

One final iteration to this scenario - which isn't very farfetched at all - is that in addition to winning Pennsylvania Kerry also picks up Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico but loses Florida. The result: Bush 269, Kerry 269.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by Kathianne
If Kerry wins PA, the tally moves to Kerry 252, Bush 249. Nevada and New Mexico remain irrelevant, and Florida becomes ground zero - again.

Let's hope that this particular scenario does not play out. Don't think I could stand another round of hanging chads. Although I understand they are going to touch screen voting. That means we'll have to see what part of the screen was drooled on. If someone's dentures fell onto the screen - is that an automatic vote for kerry?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Let's hope that this particular scenario does not play out. Don't think I could stand another round of hanging chads. Although I understand they are going to touch screen voting. That means we'll have to see what part of the screen was drooled on. If someone's dentures fell onto the screen - is that an automatic vote for kerry?

I dont think wed have to worry about hanging chads. If there was a tie in the electorial votes then the matter would go to GOP congress and Bush would win. Of course wed have to listen to four more years of libs whining that Bush wasnt elected. But im not worried that that scenario will happen.

 

[tpahl]

I think in the coming months we are going to see the http://www.badnarik.com factor play a major role in the shape of this election changing nearly all of those states in some way or another.

Travis

 

[dilloduck]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Let's hope that this particular scenario does not play out. Don't think I could stand another round of hanging chads. Although I understand they are going to touch screen voting. That means we'll have to see what part of the screen was drooled on. If someone's dentures fell onto the screen - is that an automatic vote for kerry?

Been thinkin the same thing---the Dems must already have a strategy in place to fight a defeat. We already did the chad thing so I'm betting on claims of computer errors.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by tpahl
I think in the coming months we are going to see the http://www.badnarik.com factor play a major role in the shape of this election changing nearly all of those states in some way or another.

Travis

I very much doubt that.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
I very much doubt that.

Why do you doubt it? Or are you hoping it?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/politics/main619019.shtml

“The Libertarians will impact Republicans more than Nader will impact Democrats,” said Lawrence Jacobs, the director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota and possibly the nation’s preeminent expert on third-party politics.

 

[MtnBiker]

How many times has Michael Badnarik been mentioned in the media as compared to Nader?

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
How many times has Michael Badnarik been mentioned in the media as compared to Nader?

First of all Badnarik was considered an underdog to win the LP nomination and thus was not getting much press at all until a week ago.

Secondly, most of Naders press has been about people not supporting him this year, not getting on the ballot in many states, and not being a major factor this year. In other words he is getting press only because he is no longer a factor.

Badnariks press has been about how he IS a factor that the GOP would be wise not to ignore.

Travis

 

[MtnBiker]

Ok fine, my point is, Badnarik is not really on the radar screen. Of course 3rd party canidates will always be around and have some impact on elections, but unless Badnarik receives national attention he is likely not to recieve more than 1 or 2 percent of national vote. Perhaps more in some select states.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Ok fine, my point is, Badnarik is not really on the radar screen. Of course 3rd party canidates will always be around and have some impact on elections, but unless Badnarik receives national attention he is likely not to recieve more than 1 or 2 percent of national vote. Perhaps more in some select states.

1 or 2 percent of the vote in MANY states will signifigantly impact the elections. My only point was that as this race moves forward in the next few months that impact (as I call the Badnarik Factor) will come to the forfront of the media.

Then again I could be wrong and they migth not recognize it. They have failed to recognize the Libertarian factor in many previous elections (the most recent WA state Senate Race comes to mind) until after the fact and only THEN report on how the Libertarian candidate had many times more votes than the difference between the R and the D candidates.

But whether it is before or after the election, Badnariks effect on this race will be discussed in the years ahead. I am sure of that.

 

[Annie]

tpahl Welcome.

Being a bit enamored with the Libertarian ideals myself, I was more than a bit disappointed with his nomination. I listened to his acceptance speech on C-Span and it was a disaster. He couldn't even deal with the drug issue in a sane way.

His, 'I'll sit down the Congress and make them see my way,' was ludicrous from the getgo. He is not going to take votes away. It's nearly like Cheech and Chong time.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
tpahl Welcome.

Being a bit enamored with the Libertarian ideals myself, I was more than a bit disappointed with his nomination. I listened to his acceptance speech on C-Span and it was a disaster. He couldn't even deal with the drug issue in a sane way.

His, 'I'll sit down the Congress and make them see my way,' was ludicrous from the getgo. He is not going to take votes away. It's nearly like Cheech and Chong time.

I have not seen a transcript of his acceptance speech but I do have it recorded so I will watch it again. I do not remember anything about drugs in it. But the emphasis on his campaign is not drugs, but rather returning out government to its constitutionally intended size. I am not sure where you are getting a cheech and Chong impression of his campaign.

In the debate the day before he did speak about Prescription drugs... The whole debate can be read at http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=tpahl&godate=06/03/04&limit

Here is the transcript from the part dealing with drugs debate...

Moderator: Your Party has proposed a number of market based solutions to our health care problems. I would like for you to focus right now on the area of prescription drugs. Drug companies argued that the higher costs of drugs in the United States underwrite the research, which continually improves the quality of their product. But the doors have been opened now for Americans to purchase drugs in Canada. The cost of prescription drug benefit programs have turned out to be far larger than it was represented. We seem to be coming to a critical point in this question. What should the government do if anything with prescription drugs?

Badnarik: Congress doesn’t seem to know anything about the constitution which is their job. How much less do they know about medicine? Government regulation drives the cost of producing these drugs. It costs a billion dollars to get a drug from the table, the science table, out to he market place. You the consumers are ultimately going to pay that price. American drug companies sell those drugs to Canada. And when Americans try to purchase those drugs at a cheaper price the FDA says you are not allowed to do that because those drugs are not safe. If those drugs are not safe, why did you sell them to Canada? Any time the government does anything, it drives up the cost and it does not work. Get the government out of medicine.

 

[Annie]

Go to www.c-span.org search for libertarian convention. Choose the last link to download.

I was referring to his innane remarks on the illegal drugs. Running for president needs someone serious, not someone who is glad his mom is happy.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Go to www.c-span.org search for libertarian convention. Choose the last link to download.

I was referring to his innane remarks on the illegal drugs. Running for president needs someone serious, not someone who is glad his mom is happy.

I have it on my Tivo and will watch it again later. But Just because a guy is glad is mom is proud, does not mean he is not serious. If you watched the debates or you can read his answers to the debate questions at http://tpahl.tblog.com it is obvious that the guy is running a serious campaign.

And even if he did make a funny joke about illegal drugs in his acceptance speech, a sense of humor does not make a man serious. Reagan is a good example of a politician with a sense of humor AND a serious politician.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

Since the subject has changed quite a bit, so I will post a new thread with Badnariks stance on illegal drugs...

 

[Annie]

That wasn't a joke. He meant it.

 

[tpahl]

he meant what?

Travis

 

[insein]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
How many times has Michael Badnarik been mentioned in the media as compared to Nader?

Who the hell is Michael Bednarik and what has he given this 16 year old to make him spout his praises?

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by insein
Who the hell is Michael Bednarik and what has he given this 16 year old to make him spout his praises?

Great question (despite the attack). Badnarik is the only candidate that is strongly opposing the war in Iraq, the draft, The war on drugs, decreased spending, 2nd amendment rights and a balanced budget.

He is running for president as a Libertarian.

You can learn more at http://www.lp.org or http://www.badnarik.com

Travis