Personal (Idiotic) Theory : Kerry MAY pull a Bush in 2004.

Looks to me that it's going to come down to Florida again.

 

Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Whichever candidate wins 2 out of the 3 states listed above will win the election.

 

I don't think he's in danger of losing the popular vote, hell New York and California alone are practically enough to do that.

BUT, if Kerry were to lose the popular vote and get into office via the EC, would his victory be seen as illegitimate or stolen?

My sources say no.

 

Off topic but I had to comment on Troy McClures tagline.

Maybe we should call them the Killer M's!

GO ROX! GO STROS!

Back to politics to not derail the thread.

You might have a point there but I think it could go either way.
While the red states might be redder and the blue states turning a bit purple I think Kerry will win overwhelmingly in almost all urban areas. Even in Texas I recall latest poll showed him with a comfortable lead in Houston. At the same time the red states have gotten more electoral votes. So we could see GW Bush winning an electoral victory by taking every state he won in 2000 while Kerry wins the popular vote by taking every state Gore got in addition to taking a vast majority of the urban votes in the red states.

 

Maybe some feel the 2000 election was stolen because of the split between popular and electoral vote, but I got the feeling that they thought it was stolen because the Supreme court ordered Florida to stop counting votes. When votes aren't counted is when the idea that the elections was stolen came up.

 

I agree there are two issues here ...

1) GWB didn't win the popular vote ... I hope whoever it is that wins this time can be seen as legitimate if they don't win the Popular vote because the electoral vote is how the rules are set up and that is how people campaign and vote. We have no idea what the results would be if the election came down to a pure popular vote because so many more people would vote in states that are not swing states (that would be good but a recount nationwide would be disastrous) ... SO .. whoever wins the electoral college IS a legitimate president .. anything else is BS

2) If a state like Florida comes down to a recount, I don't care who is ahead or behind. A recount should occur, but it has to be done by machines only. All the votes should be run through the machines again and there shouldn't be any hand counting of votes because human error is going to vastly outweigh machine error. If people don't vote properly, then they screwed up. Thats just the way it is. If these rules are set up prior to the election, then no one can complain when a recount is executed this way.

 

you can't even have a recount on most of those e-voting machines.

 

How ironic would it be for the exact same thing to happen this election cycle, only with Kerry coming out on top.

 

Well, I take that back.. it wouldn't be ironic.. it would be horrific.

America would stand still, neighbors would be fighting in the street, counties would declare war on each other.

A total nightmare.

 

My theory is that if there were more rich people out there, Bush would win in a landslide.

 

You forgot Wisconsin and its 11 EVs. Not to mention that Iowa and its 7 EVs are a dead heat.

 

poetic justice, not irony

 

Your theory is wrong.

According to the '03 census, the richest 5 states are New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, Alaska, and Connecticut. 4 out of 5 of which are expected to go to Kerry. Also, The states that contain the richest individuals (New York, California, and Massachusetts) are all expected to go to Kerry.

 

Hmmm....interesting. Though I wouldn't put it past California and NY to also contain the poorest individuals.

 

I coulnt find any census info on poverty, just on child poverty (http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/liuc03.html). However, the data continues to disprove the myth that rich people vote Republican.

The 15 states with the highest rate of child poverty are New Mexico, DC, Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisana, Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Idaho, Arizona, Alabama, and Tennessee. Based on data from electoral-vote.com (they track independant pollings) 13 of the 15 above states are going to Bush in '04.

 

that's cuz children can't vote

 

Your reasoning is seriously flawed.

Carry on.

 

So who the heck is actually voting for Bush? Rich people don't vote for him. Apparently he's destroyed the middle class, so they can't be voting for him. And of course, he has trapped people in poverty, so the poor aren't voting for him.

Given all the great information I hear on the news and the deductive reason above, it looks like he'll be lucky to beat Nader.