Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Millennium · Nov 2, 2004, 10:46 PM

Zogby's final election prediction is certainly interesting. Kerry gets 311 votes, Bush gets 213, and they left 14 unaccounted for. The interesting is, they predict that Bush will win the popular vote even though he'll lose the electorals. The margin in the popular vote, incidentally, is predicted to be quite small.

What do people think of this potential development?

Logic · Nov 2, 2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
What do people think of this potential development?

Irony?

Poetic Justice?

IBL

Link · Nov 2, 2004, 11:01 PM

Bush gets a taste of his own medicine?

Wiskedjak · Nov 2, 2004, 11:10 PM

Republicans complaining about the same thing they've been complaining Democrats have been complaining about for the last 4 years?

TETENAL · Nov 2, 2004, 11:12 PM

If that happens I'm going to laugh for a whole week.

Buckaroo · Nov 2, 2004, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Zogby's final election prediction is certainly interesting. Kerry gets 311 votes, Bush gets 213, and they left 14 unaccounted for. The interesting is, they predict that Bush will win the popular vote even though he'll lose the electorals. The margin in the popular vote, incidentally, is predicted to be quite small.

What do people think of this potential development?

Where on the web page does it say he'll win the Popular Vote?

Logic · Nov 2, 2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Buckaroo:
Where on the web page does it say he'll win the Popular Vote?

Zogby International Finds: Bush at 49.4%, Kerry at 49.1%

Millennium · Nov 2, 2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Republicans complaining about the same thing they've been complaining Democrats have been complaining about for the last 4 years?

Will the Democrats still view Kerry as not having a "clear mandate", I wonder? Will they treat Kerry's victory the same way they treated Bush's? I will be interested to see this, because frankly I predict massive hypocrisy on both sides if this occurs.

Frankly, I won't be terribly happy when either one of them wins (and have no illusions about it going to anyone else), so I don't care too much how it happens. Whoever wins by the rules -meaning, in this case, the Electoral College- should take it. It was true of Bush in 2000, and if Zogby's prediction is correct then it'll be true of Kerry this time.

Either way, it seems that I may have called the "not a landslide no matter who wins" thing after all, assuming you go by the popular vote for determining landslides (which is only fair, given the fixed and wildly differing numbers of electoral votes in most states).

Wiskedjak · Nov 2, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Will the Democrats still view Kerry as not having a "clear mandate", I wonder? Will they treat Kerry's victory the same way they treated Bush's? I will be interested to see this, because frankly I predict massive hypocrisy on both sides if this occurs.

Frankly, I won't be terribly happy when either one of them wins (and have no illusions about it going to anyone else), so I don't care too much how it happens. Whoever wins by the rules -meaning, in this case, the Electoral College- should take it. It was true of Bush in 2000, and if Zogby's prediction is correct then it'll be true of Kerry this time.

Either way, it seems that I may have called the "not a landslide no matter who wins" thing after all, assuming you go by the popular vote for determining landslides (which is only fair, given the fixed and wildly differing numbers of electoral votes in most states).

Very true. You're absolutely right. I'm sure Democrats will perceive Kerry (should he win with the Electoral but not the popular vote) exactly as Republicans perceived Bush in 2000.

I also agree that it doesn't matter much who wins. Personally, while I don't like Bush, I don't like Kerry very much more. I think the only reason I'd prefer to see Kerry win is because Bush in a second term (without having to worry about getting re-elected again) scares me.

zigzag · Nov 2, 2004, 11:30 PM

It would be further reason to reform or eliminate the electoral college, which is of little real use and erodes confidence in the system.

Zimphire · Nov 2, 2004, 11:32 PM

If this happened, I would STILL feel the same about the pop vote.

Wiskedjak · Nov 2, 2004, 11:43 PM

I read today that an electoral college voter is under no obligation to vote as he/she pledged to. Can an electoral college voter really choose to vote for one candidate if he/she was selected to vote for another?

Buckaroo · Nov 2, 2004, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I read today that an electoral college voter is under no obligation to vote as he/she pledged to. Can an electoral college voter really choose to vote for one candidate if he/she was selected to vote for another?

Yes he can vote however he chooses. It dosen't happen to often.

Millennium · Nov 2, 2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I read today that an electoral college voter is under no obligation to vote as he/she pledged to. Can an electoral college voter really choose to vote for one candidate if he/she was selected to vote for another?

Yep. A couple of them do it every time. A few even abstain; DC seems to do it almost like clockwork with at least one elector every time. It's never happened in significant enough numbers to actually change the final outcome, though.

There was a letter-writing movement from Gore's campaign to try and sway the Florida electors back in 2000, in the hopes of regaining the election they believed had been stolen from them. It didn't work.

Shaddim · Nov 2, 2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I read today that an electoral college voter is under no obligation to vote as he/she pledged to. Can an electoral college voter really choose to vote for one candidate if he/she was selected to vote for another?

Historically, yes, this has happened before. However, it would be the end of that elector's political career. Considering how polarized this election is, I doubt it would happen.

Wiskedjak · 01:01 AM

sorry, missed the answer

xi_hyperon · Nov 3, 2004, 12:20 AM

[edit] oops, wrong thread.

mitchell_pgh · Nov 3, 2004, 12:54 AM

As a Republican... If Kerry wins the electoral college, but doesn't win the popular vote. I'll be satisfied that the system worked.

Yah, I may not be happy with how it all worked out with reference to the candidate, but in the end, it's the system. We can complain all we want, but it is what it is. If we all hated it so much in 2000, we should have changed it back then.

mitchell_pgh · Nov 3, 2004, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Yep. A couple of them do it every time. A few even abstain; DC seems to do it almost like clockwork with at least one elector every time. It's never happened in significant enough numbers to actually change the final outcome, though.

There was a letter-writing movement from Gore's campaign to try and sway the Florida electors back in 2000, in the hopes of regaining the election they believed had been stolen from them. It didn't work.

Bingo, it's political suicide...

Millennium · Nov 3, 2004, 07:58 AM

Well, it seems as though Zogby is pretty much full of it. Their electoral vote numbers were wildly off the mark, particularly in the battleground states, and while they were right about Bush winning the popular vote they screwed up the margin big time.

My wife had an interesting poll idea: go state by state, each time polling ten times as many people as there are electoral votes, and predict the election that way. It doesn't look like anyone has tried doing that.