bush throws in the towel in pennsylvania

frankiepop · October-14th-2004, 06:07 PM

the news today seems to generally suspicion that george w bush's campaign is in real trouble. here is some more 'bad' news that suggests bush may be in real trouble. this article states that the bush campaign is pulling advertising from pa and targeting other states. bush seems to be abandoning a full throttle effort in pa for now.

http://www.pennlive.com/statehouse/p...5703258020.xml

the title of the article reads:

Quote:

Bush reduces state ad buys, shifts money to Florida, Ohio

lynn · October-14th-2004, 06:27 PM

It was mentioned last night that he might also forget about New Jersey because he'd have to buy NYC and Philly markets to reach it.

bluenoter · October-14th-2004, 08:46 PM

Bush is not "throwing in the towel in Pennsylvania," and the thread title is grossly misleading and inaccurate. Read the article linked in #1.

Pennsylvania remains a crucial swing state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankiepop

the news today seems to generally suspicion that george w bush's campaign is in real trouble. here is some more 'bad' news that suggests bush may be in real trouble.

What's the rest of the bad news for Bush today? Is there anything other than the Bush campaign's cutting back on air buys?

Fpop, you know that I'd love to believe that the Bush campaign is (or even may be) in real trouble, but I can't and I don't.

crawjo · October-14th-2004, 08:47 PM

Bush needs Ohio and Florida, which are more winnable for him than Pennsylvania. Kerry has conceded states too. I believe he's conceded Missouri, though I might be wrong about that.

Gordon B · October-14th-2004, 09:02 PM

The two most recent PA polls are Kerry by 3 and by 1. The article doesn't say that he's pulling out of PA only Eastern PA. Money spent in Western PA, which shores up Ohio is better spent then money spent in Eastern PA since Kerry is a very strong favorite now in NJ.

State polls

kenny weir · October-14th-2004, 09:04 PM

Just curious ... what are the odds being offered by the bookies, official or otherwise? Have they shifted in recent weeks/months?

bluenoter · October-14th-2004, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny weir

Just curious ... what are the odds being offered by the bookies, official or otherwise? Have they shifted in recent weeks/months?

That's definitely a question for Gordon B. If he doesn't reply, you might want to PM him and ask.

crawjo · October-14th-2004, 10:38 PM

At tradesports, Bush is now bidding at 54.3. (If Bush wins, a Bush share is worth 100.) That's actually higher than I would have expected. It seems to me that most analysts are giving the edge to Kerry at this point, as the race is very close and undecideds tend to break for the challenger at the end.

Gordon B · October-14th-2004, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crawjo

At tradesports, Bush is now bidding at 54.3. (If Bush wins, a Bush share is worth 100.) That's actually higher than I would have expected. It seems to me that most analysts are giving the edge to Kerry at this point, as the race is very close and undecideds tend to break for the challenger at the end.

Tradesports is still at 54.3% for Bush to win the electoral college but only 50% to win the popular vote. The Iowa Electronic Markets give Bush a 54.6% chance of winning the popular vote but that market is less effficient due to the $500 position limit for individual players.

crawjo · October-15th-2004, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Tradesports is still at 54.3% for Bush to win the electoral college but only 50% to win the popular vote. The Iowa Electronic Markets give Bush a 54.6% chance of winning the popular vote but that market is less effficient due to the $500 position limit for individual players.

I've been thinking more and more that there is a very good chance that Bush will once again lose the popular vote but win the election. In the state polls that I have seen, he still is clinging to leads in the key states: Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, a couple of others as well. Meanwhile, Kerry's lead in the solid blue states keeps getting bigger and bigger. He'll probably win New York by 20 percentage points.

As for me, I really hope that the winner of the popular vote wins the election. I don't want four more years of people saying that somebody is unelected, etc. etc.

Edit: This just points out the wisdom of vote-trading. If you are a Kerry supporter in California, or a Bush supporter in Texas, if you can work it out so there is even a CHANCE that your vote can be sent to one of the states in play, you should do it. Now that Nader is on the ballot in NY, I've been thinking about trading my vote, but I'm not that enthusiastic about Kerry, and I don't like Nader. I want to encourage a real third party, and not just one guy who thinks he's a third party.

Gordon B · October-15th-2004, 07:05 AM

Crawjo, it turns out that you were right and I was wrong about Colorado being in play. Enough immigrants from South of the Border who favor Democrats have come to Colorado to give Kerry a fighting chance there.

I don't know if the referendum will pass but Democrats are campaigning for it and Republicans against it due to the CW that Bush is favored to win the state.

Let's assume that Bush voters also vote "no" and Kerry voters "yes". If Kerry wins the state and the referendum passes, Kerry picks up 5 electoral votes and Bush 4. If Bush wins the state and the referendum loses, Bush picks up 9 and Kerry 0.

If Bush wins the election 270-268 because the referendum in Colorado deprived Kerry of 4 electoral votes, that would be the greatest election irony in history.

Regardless of who wins this election, it would be stupid for Colorado to be the only state with a fully proportional representation awarding of its electoral votes. Colorado will effectively have one electoral vote if it passes. Who would ever campaign there for one electoral vote?

walto · October-15th-2004, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Regardless of who wins this election, it would be stupid for Colorado to be the only state with a fully proportional representation awarding of its electoral votes. Colorado will effectively have one electoral vote if it passes. Who would ever campaign there for one electoral vote?

Are they really the only state? I thought there were three for some reason. You're right, of course, that, while proportional distribution is certainly fairer, states only hurt themselves by going it alone.

Vince Kargatis · October-15th-2004, 10:40 AM

Well, would take a miracle to reform everything at once. Someone's gotta step up to the plate, good for Colorado. The same issue applies to pork - voters have to step up and realize that their reps bringing home the bacon is bad for the country, and stop rewarding such reps with re-election. Such districts would indeed "fare worse" while "doing right". Heck, same for all non-forced charitable actions.

Enforcer · October-15th-2004, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walto

Are they really the only state? I thought there were three for some reason.

Nebraska and Maine.

Gary Sisco · October-15th-2004, 11:04 AM

Truth is, the people who make up each state's EC can vote in any way they want to, unless otherwise mandated by the state government. That's one of the reasons it has to go. It's the Electoral College itself that elects the presidency, not the people, and not the states. I can't see any democratic reason not to award them proportionally, given that they're not even required to vote according to the popular election results to begin with.

Enforcer · October-15th-2004, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Truth is, the people who make up each state's EC can vote in any way they want to, unless otherwise mandated by the state government.

Which makes me curious: How often have they broken with the state's popular vote? I remember learning about the electoral college in school and being told that someone voted against the popular vote once. I think it was Kennedy, and the guy said he couldn't bring himself to vote for a Catholic or something like that. Is that correct?

Phil_Meloy · October-15th-2004, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Nebraska and Maine.

The situation in Maine and Nebraska is slightly different than the proportional representation system being proposed in Colorado Larry. In Maine (4 EVs) and Nebraska (5EVs) a candidate gets one electoral vote for each congressional district he wins plus two for the state as a whole. There are three congressional districts in Nebraska and two in Maine. It would still be possible for a candidate who only won by a slender margin in these states to gain all the available EVs. The Colorado ballot referendum would allocate its electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote so that a candidate who only won by a slender margin would gain 5 of the 9 available Colorado EVs while his opponent would be awarded the other 4.

Enforcer · October-15th-2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil_Meloy

The situation in Maine and Nebraska is slightly different than the proportional representation system being proposed in Colorado Larry. In Maine (4 EVs) and Nebraska (5EVs) a candidate gets one electoral vote for each congressional district he wins plus two for the state as a whole. There are three congressional districts in Nebraska and two in Maine. It would still be possible for a candidate who only won by a slender margin in these states to gain all the available EVs. The Colorado ballot referendum would allocate its electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote so that a candidate who only won by a slender margin would gain 5 of the 9 available Colorado EVs while his opponent would be awarded the other 4.

Thanks, Phil. You know more about the election process in my country than I do!

Dumb,
Larry

Tom Storer · October-15th-2004, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Regardless of who wins this election, it would be stupid for Colorado to be the only state with a fully proportional representation awarding of its electoral votes. Colorado will effectively have one electoral vote if it passes. Who would ever campaign there for one electoral vote?

But from the point of view of Colorado voters, proportional awarding of electoral votes more accurately reflects their own voting. There will no longer be the risk of seeing their voting intentions wiped out by the winner-take-all system. Therefore it's in their long-term interest to support it.

And it isn't true that Colorado would have only one electoral vote. It would have only one electoral vote when the election is very close and the electoral votes are awarded 5 to 4. That won't necessarily be the case forever. It could be divvied up 8 to 1, 7 to 2, or 6 to 3 in future elections.

Phil_Meloy · October-15th-2004, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Thanks, Phil. You know more about the election process in my country than I do!

I think there's more attention outside the US focused on this particular election than on any other past US election that I can recall.

Chris D · October-15th-2004, 12:07 PM

If all states were proportional, we'd have a truly national election. New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago would get to see all the stomach-churning crap we've been subjected to since Labor Day.
And wouldn't that be fun!
Having to spread resources also might lessen the density of political ads. Here in Wisconsin, one cannot watch early fringe or the local news without being bombarded.

Tanager · October-15th-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris D

Having to spread resources also might lessen the density of political ads. Here in Wisconsin, one cannot watch early fringe or the local news without being bombarded.

This is something I don't think about that much, since, although I suppose having Edwards in the mix makes things closer, I think we're pretty much safely in the Bush camp as a state. I've seen some ads for Bush, some for Kerry, but really not to the same stomach-churning extent that I suspect those of you in more hotly contested states have. You have my sympathies.

walto · October-15th-2004, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris D

If all states were proportional, we'd have a truly national election. New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago would get to see all the stomach-churning crap we've been subjected to since Labor Day.
And wouldn't that be fun!
Having to spread resources also might lessen the density of political ads. Here in Wisconsin, one cannot watch early fringe or the local news without being bombarded.

It would be much better certainly, but still not equivalent to a system in which the guy who gets the most votes wins.

Tom, I agree that proportionality is nice for the voters on the losing side (the side I'm usually on, btw), but it's less nice for the guys on the winning side. And, of course, if I'm a candidate with limited time/resources, I'm more likely to concentrate on winner-take-all states and ignore the others. I hope it passes in Colorado, but it really has to be done everywhere to make things fairer.

lynn · October-15th-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris D

If all states were proportional, we'd have a truly national election. New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago would get to see all the stomach-churning crap we've been subjected to since Labor Day.
And wouldn't that be fun!
Having to spread resources also might lessen the density of political ads. Here in Wisconsin, one cannot watch early fringe or the local news without being bombarded.

Amen to that. Nevada is a political parking lot on all channels and cable. It is pure misery. Movie channels have helped.

Enforcer · October-15th-2004, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Regardless of who wins this election, it would be stupid for Colorado to be the only state with a fully proportional representation awarding of its electoral votes. Colorado will effectively have one electoral vote if it passes. Who would ever campaign there for one electoral vote?

You know, it's probably not in my best interests to illustrate my own simple mindedness over and over again, but this is a good point I hadn't thought of. If all the states don't get on board with EC reform, then there are some undesirable side effects for the ones that do.

Gordon B · October-15th-2004, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

Nebraska and Maine.

Not true. Those states are winner take all by congressional district. That's not the same at all.

States that are solid red or solid blue will never go for proportional representation by state-wide vote. The majority party in that state would lobby hard against it.

Gordon B · October-15th-2004, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris D

If all states were proportional, we'd have a truly national election. New York, Boston, Los Angeles and Chicago would get to see all the stomach-churning crap we've been subjected to since Labor Day.
And wouldn't that be fun!
Having to spread resources also might lessen the density of political ads. Here in Wisconsin, one cannot watch early fringe or the local news without being bombarded.

I haven't seen a single ad for Bush or Kerry. I live in the solidly Blue Maryland but
that's not the only reason. I hardly ever watch a commercial anymore. TIVO rules!

crawjo · October-15th-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Not true. Those states are winner take all by congressional district. That's not the same at all.

States that are solid red or solid blue will never go for proportional representation by state-wide vote. The majority party in that state would lobby hard against it.

This is why we need a violent revolution.