Red Blue USA Cartogram

September 14, 2004 12:08 PM

Those of us following the daily heart attack that is electoral-vote.com will notice a new site feature today. If you've ever wondered how the popular vote can be so evenly split when the red state / blue state breakdown glares so overwhelmingly crimson, now you can see a map of the US with states inflated/shrunk according to the proportions of their electoral votes. Presumably, this map will be updated, along with the standard one, with new polling data daily. [thanks to EB for originally pointing me to the site]
posted by scarabic (95 comments total)

from the Votemaster:

"The good news for you is the site has a new feature today. Many people have asked me for cartograms. Well, not quite. Actually, nobody has asked me for cartograms. But many people have ask for warped and distorted maps of the U.S. showing the states in proportion to their electoral votes. But I knew what they meant. These things are called cartograms and are widely used to show how different states, countries, or regions differ on some variable, such as population, beef production, or CDs purchased. The problem was finding a blank cartogram and writing the software. Mike at www.kerryedwardslinks.com made me a blank cartogram. Then Eric Paulson of Viking Web Development. wrote the software to color in the cartogram. Thanks to both of you. If you like this feature, you might want to check out their respective websites. Today's cartogram is here and will be updated daily. The old ones will be archived just as the maps are. The EVs are not listed in the cartogram. For once, Montana is too small to put any useful information in it. Your homework assignment for tomorrow is to memorize all the EVs."
posted by scarabic at 12:10 PM on September 14, 2004

Jesus, if you don't like political ads and you live in Florida or Pennsylvania I'd say now's a good time to throw out your TV.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:21 PM on September 14, 2004

What the heck is going on with that predictor? It seems to be swinging about 60 points back and forward each day recently.
posted by reklaw at 12:29 PM on September 14, 2004

I agree - it's wildly different from day to day. That can't really be accurate, can it?
posted by agregoli at 12:35 PM on September 14, 2004

Yeah. New polls come in daily, but not every state is refreshed daily. So when results come in, the data they replace can be kinda old, resulting in a big shift, especially considering that the polls come from various sources, all of whom have some margin of error. It's the best data availlable, but take it with a block of salt.
posted by scarabic at 12:35 PM on September 14, 2004

Nice post Scarabic. Should be very useful for people who don't know about the population/electoral vote tie in the US election. I agree with Space Coyote, the next few months are going to be a bloodbath in Fla and PA.
posted by sic at 12:37 PM on September 14, 2004

Daily heart attack? Actually, this site has kept me sane for the last few months. It's kind of removed from all the hype and spin happening at other news outlets. It's my first read every morning, and even if it's bad news, there's no hyperbole.

I thought the little cartogram was cool. I found myself wanting comparisons of land mass and populations as well.

reklaw, that's why they call them "swing states." heh. This one will probably be a squeaker.
posted by whatnot at 12:37 PM on September 14, 2004

Well, I am preparing for another four years of W. Kerry's done. Kerry's been done. So I am storming all the local grocery stores, buying canned foods and water. Hurricane W is going to last another four years, and knows what will be left when it's over?
posted by xmutex at 12:45 PM on September 14, 2004

He posts the results of all polls that are submitted to him, in agregate form. Since polling is notoriously variable, it's not surprising that this thing swings back and forth.
posted by Irontom at 12:47 PM on September 14, 2004

There's a bit of an issue with the electoral-vote.com maps (which I think the person making the maps discusses at some point). Basically, those maps display the results of whatever the most recent poll for the state was, without regard to any trends that might show in the most recent several polls. So, a single "outlier" can throw the whole thing off.

Click on a state, and you get much more interesting info about the particular state.

Dale's and Race2004.net handle their overview maps differently. Larry Sabato's pages are good too--not updated as often, but have good info on Senate, House, and Gov. races.

The cartogram is a good illustration, though. Reminds one that what looks in regular maps like vast swaths of red-state are mostly sagebrush and swampland.
posted by gimonca at 12:53 PM on September 14, 2004

Here is a bit easier to read map. I have not verified anything regarding their methodology, but their map is many times easier for me to read than the one linked in the FPP.

I agree - it's wildly different from day to day. That can't really be accurate, can it?

The methodology is to use the latest polls available, no matter if the poll is a statistical tie (called barely for a candidate), a dead heat (called an exact tie, no EVs included), an outlier or even polls with demonstrably partisan sources or obvious biased methodologies.

The best numbers come from the catagory labeled strong for a candidate and weak for a candidate. In both cases, the polls are outside of the margin of error. This would give Bush 203 electoral votes to Kerry's 207.

The final prediction map may also be of interest to you.

This map is based on the projections from the least squares linear regression lines on the state polls. The data are very noisy, so this map should not be taken too seriously until October. Because the Kerry and Bush curves have separate regression lines, in some cases due to noise, the sum is more than 100%. Also, the Nader factor has to be accounted for.

posted by sequential at 12:56 PM on September 14, 2004

I love how everyone here takes comfort various graphic and statistical fun house mirrors to deny the reality that John Kerry is a Mike Dukakis-in-waiting.

Boys and girls, get ready, you've convinced yourself that Bush is the devil (which he is not), and your worst nightmare is less than two months away.

And what will I do after Bush wins reelection? Actually, look into getting rid of New York's Republican Governor, who is a bad joke, and dethroning the less-progressive candidates for Congress. We need an enlightened foreign and domestic policy, and Bush is really only capable of the former.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:58 PM on September 14, 2004

Almost all of those "barely" one or the other states have a 1-3% difference. Isn't that well within the standard margin of error for polls?

Adding weak & strongs together you end up with Kerry at 207 and Bush at 203, with 128 ("barely" and ties) up for grabs. So, basically, anybody's race.

Well, except for Nader.
posted by papercake at 1:01 PM on September 14, 2004

We need an enlightened foreign and domestic policy, and Bush is really only capable of the former.

Yeah, invading your own country is pretty much frowned upon. Although he'd have a pretty good shot at finding WMDs here, at least.
posted by papercake at 1:07 PM on September 14, 2004

papercake: are you one of those people who don't like to prepare for the inevitable?
posted by ParisParamus at 1:12 PM on September 14, 2004

Sorry PP, just saying something won't make it true. Kerry is polling even, or is ahead, of an incumbent that had 91% approval ratings. Sorry, your boy is just like his dad. Kerry isn't losing. Another site, which doesn't just take the latest poll to come out to name who has "won" the state, is Electoral College Meta-Analysis.
posted by plemeljr at 1:13 PM on September 14, 2004

Paris: I don't understand why you think Bush's re-election is inevitable. The electoral vote graph is noisy, but it's clear that Kerry's spent a lot more time above the 270 line than Bush has.

Of course, if the regression lines are \ for Kerry and / for Bush, that doesn't make a difference, but I don't think that's at all clear.

Also, what paper cake said.

Bush may win. But going all Hugo Weaving/Agent Smith on us is premature.
posted by weston at 1:27 PM on September 14, 2004

And what will I do after Bush wins reelection? Actually, look into getting rid of New York's Republican Governor, who is a bad joke, and dethroning the less-progressive candidates for Congress.

So the plan is to dethrone a progressive governor while trying to get progressives into Congress?

Either that or you have a funny idea of what "progressive" means...

/yeah, I know, I should just ignore PP...
posted by clevershark at 1:34 PM on September 14, 2004

This thread wouldn't be complete without our two favorite Words of Dread: October Surprise.
posted by kozad at 1:38 PM on September 14, 2004

ParisParamus: Regardless of who wins in November, will you stop acting like trolling prick on every thread you post in?
posted by gwint at 1:42 PM on September 14, 2004

John Kerry is a Mike Dukakis-in-waiting.

Dukakis only got 111 electoral votes, while Kerry will *probably* break 200.

Other than that, it's sad but true. The end is really fucking nigh, and it's almost time to start considering organizational strategy for the next four years.
posted by norm at 1:45 PM on September 14, 2004

No doubt. Especially in the completely non-political ones?
posted by Irontom at 1:48 PM on September 14, 2004

Paris, a question: Why is it so important to you that everybody accept the "inevitable" Bush win? What does it matter to you?

On preview, norm, theres still a lot of time and two debates before the election. In 2000, Gore was polling poorly in early September as well. Just sayin'
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:49 PM on September 14, 2004

Kerry is scheduled to be DOA on November 2nd right now, and it depresses the hell out of me. I'm liberal, registered to the green party, from Massachusetts, and I've been for Kerry since before the primaries.

But he fucked up. He's let Bush define him at every opportunity, and has fumbled almost every chance to re-define himself. He was too much of a pussy to differentiate himself from Bush on Iraq, godforbid he might alienate some "undecided voters" by "going against the president". Now it's too little, too late, and they're pegging him as a flip-flopper (rightly so in a sense) for now saying he'll do everything differently. I know what Kerry's talking about along the lines of voting for authorization of force, vise invading another country, but he's done a piss poor job of eloquently presenting that thought for our soundbyte culture.

So he's toast, I think. Bush and Rove & Co. are absolutely brilliant at what they do, manipulation of language and image, and it will be very hard to un-do 9 months of bullshit in 7 weeks. I don't think Carville can do it, and he's probably the best Democratic campaign advisor out there (Just watch War Room, and you'll see)

Wether Bush wins or loses, there will be a sea change in the Republican party - If he wins, the Republican party as everyone knows it is dead, and neo-conservative nationalists will take their place. If Bush looses, there will be a split in the party along the lines of the 1948 split of the Democratic party over the mixing of the races. A very interesting, and important election in the history of this country that will re-define American politics for years to come.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:54 PM on September 14, 2004

theres still a lot of time and two debates before the election

yes, but neither time nor debates will change much (I mean, if the voters decided substantively, you think the polls would be the way they are?). the only thing that takes Bush down now is a real scandal, with sources and evidence.

I will be very glad to be proven wrong on this, but I am about 95% sure it's all over but the Texas-sized backslapping and gloating.
posted by norm at 1:58 PM on September 14, 2004

Folks, ParisParamus is a troll. He exists solely to be an itch. Responding to him is just encouragement.

Kerry isn't done, Bush isn't done. There's still two months to go (almost) and there are still the debates (if Bush decides to actually go through with them).

The doomsayers, like PP, are just idiots trying to stir up people into a tizzy because it makes them feel important.

There are a handful of Mefite's who are just no longer worth responding to and ParisParamus is damned close to the top of the list.
posted by fenriq at 1:59 PM on September 14, 2004

Nobody disagrees with his POV more than me, but you guys really let PP get to you. What he's said looks unbelievably mild to me. Unless opposing viewpoint=troll.
posted by luser at 2:09 PM on September 14, 2004

You know, Paris, if you wanted to be a dick there are real life ways of doing it. You could key cars or trip old ladies for instance. All this internet nonsense is holding you back, son. When your balls drop, let us all know by fucking off.
posted by jon_kill at 2:13 PM on September 14, 2004

" Paris, a question: Why is it so important to you that everybody accept the "inevitable" Bush win? What does it matter to you?"

These answer come to mind:

Although it's arguably that no candidate would have been able to beat Presdent Bush, it would be nice if the progressive forces in the United States would be a bit more realistic, not spend so much time demonizing the opposition to the point of alienating moderates such as myself. Calling the President a liar when, at worst--at worst--he was mistaken on Iraq just makes moderates run away from you. So even if you think the President is a demon, it's totally unconstructive to voice such feelings--basically you deserve to lose.

Second, while it may not represent all, or even most people who support John Kerry, I will take personal, visceral pleasure in the disappointment of the freaky "Eat Bush, Lick Dick" crowd of young fools I see on the subway here in NYC. I don't want to live a United States where such vulgarity is acceptable.

Finally, the President in powerful in foreign policy, but that's about it. All this BS about Bush and the economy angers me. If the tax cut wasn't enacted, the economy would be worse than it is now (the deficit, which isn't that big in real terms, is a problem down the road, not today), but not much worse. The President has almost nothing to do with the economy.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:15 PM on September 14, 2004

PP's problem isn't the message, but the tone... If he'd bring it down a notch or two, he'd be fine. He's not even close to any of the "classic" Metafilter trolls, in my opinion, hamas heaven, and 111.

Now those guys know how to troll...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:17 PM on September 14, 2004

The personal attacks are getting pretty silly, and fit the definition of "trolling" at least as much as the behaviour of the person they seek to attack. That's the way I see things anyway.

PP is pretty consistent in what he says... certainly more so than the guy he seems to admire so much, in any case!
posted by clevershark at 2:19 PM on September 14, 2004

PS: I'm very disillusioned that Al Gore has gone off the deep end.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:20 PM on September 14, 2004

The GOP has two senatorial candidates- a former doctor who, albiet having performed them himself, thinks doctors who provide abortions should be executed, and a resident of Maryland who moved to Illinois to declare the Vice-President's daughter a heathen.

But Al Gore is clearly nuts. Got it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:29 PM on September 14, 2004

I think September 11, 2001 is ample reason to change course on foreign policy. That's not the same as going back and fourth and back and fourth on the wisdom of the Iraq war. But, whatever...my little vote in Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY will be negated many times over by my neighbors, fellow-city dwellers, and fellow New Yorkers.

I guess I'm a moderate, and certain events require moderate amounts of drinking. Election night will be one of those.

May the man with the most votes win ;- 0
posted by ParisParamus at 2:30 PM on September 14, 2004

papercake: are you one of those people who don't like to prepare for the inevitable?

Paris: are you one of those people who likes to set himself up for utter humiliation when their arrogantly proffered predictions fail to come true, or, at best, snotty triumphalism when they realize? Apparently, you are. Considering Bush's one-term-chump heritage, I think you can shove the smug Dukakis cracks up your kaka crack.
posted by scarabic at 2:42 PM on September 14, 2004

Although it's arguably that no candidate would have been able to beat president Bush, it would be nice if the progressive forces in the United States would be a bit more realistic, not spend so much time demonizing the opposition to the point of alienating moderates such as myself. Calling the President a liar when, at worst--at worst--he was mistaken on Iraq just makes moderates run away from you. So even if you think the President is a demon, it's totally unconstructive to voice such feelings--basically you deserve to lose.

No right-thinking progressive actually thinks Bush is a demon, that's just nonsense. People may use it, I don't know, figuratively, not literally (and I wont menition General whatshisname who "saw" a demon in Iraq during the first Gulf war... Someone help me out). And Bush has lied. Lies by omission, and lies by redirection are still lies, and we get to divide them up into two different categories in fact. Putting intelligence in your State of the Union address that you know, or should know, is HIGHLY suspect and probably false, is a lie. I don't care to parse every word to see that it is, in fact, technically true when we all know what the goddamn message is supposed to be.

Second, while it may not represent all, or even most people who support John Kerry, I will take personal, visceral pleasure in the disappointment of the freaky "Eat Bush, Lick Dick" crowd of young fools I see on the subway here in NYC. I don't want to live a United States where such vulgarity is acceptable.

Oh please. As if those kids in any way represent the mainstream progressives in this country... As if the right doesn't have a whole wing who's nuanced foreign policy can be summed up as "Fuck the French!"... There are idiots on both sides who are political in the way that rich trust-fund kids wear trucker hats and thrift store t-shirts - fucking window dressing, trying to be hip. THIS has nothing to do with the people who are running to be in-charge of this country, and the fact that thats even an issue for you is amazing to me. You're not electing dumb kids on the subway to political office.

Finally, the President in powerful in foreign policy, but that's about it. All this BS about Bush and the economy angers me. If the tax cut wasn't enacted, the economy would be worse than it is now (the deficit, which isn't that big in real terms, is a problem down the road, not today), but not much worse. The President has almost nothing to do with the economy.

Ok... So the Presidents polices and the political climate he creates has NOTHING to do with the economy? I agree that he can't wave a magic wand or anything, but the idea economy exists in a vacuum separate from the actions congressional and legislative branch is inane. Presidential attitudes, policies and actions have a tremendous effect on the economy...

Yeesh...

I guess I'm a moderate, and certain events require moderate amounts of drinking. Election night will be one of those.

Moderate drinking? Regardless of the outcome I'm going on an old-fashioned bender...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:43 PM on September 14, 2004

Calling the President a liar...

but it seems you have no problem with things like elements of the republican party lying about kerry's record in the senate and accusing him of lying about his service during vietnam. or, if you do have a problem, i doubt you say anything in any conservative forums about it.

I don't want to live a United States where such vulgarity is acceptable.

but it seems you have no problem with things like bush's "major league asshole" comment and cheney's "go fuck yourself" snarl and their non-apologies afterwards. or with the major bush backer's (from, i think, bob jones university) reference to the naacp as the nat'l association of retarded people...then apologizing to mentally challenged people for linking them to the naacp. or, if you do, i doubt you've done anything about it, or mentioned your dislike of such actions and utterances in any conservative forum.

The President has almost nothing to do with the economy.

soooo...if the economy were roaring and bush took credit for it, you'd be right out there writing letters to the bush campaign, posting on conservative forums, and hanging out near the water cooler at work reminding people that the president has almost nothing to do with the economy? sure.
posted by lord_wolf at 2:45 PM on September 14, 2004

i use this handy applet to play my own guessing game.(right now, i'm guessing 268 kerry, 270 evil one).
posted by moonbird at 2:46 PM on September 14, 2004

I think September 11, 2001 is ample reason to change course on foreign policy.

No one's disagreeing with that. However your guy is just not doing the right thing by using 9/11 to justify implementing a machiavellic plan conceived almost 10 years before it and dismissed by the President of that time as ludicrous.

Furthermore there is ample evidence that while the plan's lofty intentions were to insure that the US simply does not have to contend with anyone else even as an influence, its implementation is quickly leading to a marginalization of America as a force in the world. Not only is that true in the sense that the US no longer commands the international respect it once wielded, but even in military terms America simply couldn't respond to an attack of the scope of 9/11 because its troops are increasingly kept busy by the problems in Iraq.

As for the Administration's assertion that Iraq has led to a softening of its enemies, where is the evidence for that? Libya? Please... Gaddafi merely saw an opportunity to put an end to sanctions by giving up a weapons program that was nowhere near ready. In the meantime Iran is openly defying the UN -- not unlike Bush, I might add -- and affirms that it will keep its nuclear program going, while North Korea's own nuclear aspirations are also still on track. Meantime US troops are busy dealing with the one country in the "axis of evil" which has since proved to be not much of a threat.


That's what I (among others) think is the problem with Bush, and why he's wrong on security and wrong for America.
posted by clevershark at 2:48 PM on September 14, 2004

Almost all of those "barely" one or the other states have a 1-3% difference. Isn't that well within the standard margin of error for polls?

That's why they play the game have the election.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:48 PM on September 14, 2004

Scarabic: it's people of your coarse discourse that I don't want running this place (the United States). Your words alienate me to no end. Why must you do that? Who raised you (or didn't)?

By the way, should Bush win, I will be satisfied, but not "happy" in any extreme way. I will be happy that the fort was protected from certain undesirable fate. But I will also feel the increased need to watch out for the President's corporate and environmental blindness (as well as myopia on various other issues).
posted by ParisParamus at 2:49 PM on September 14, 2004

(By the way, if you hate the electoral-vote.com link graphics and want to keep the tally on your site feel free to use this one or this one.)
posted by rafter at 2:53 PM on September 14, 2004

Or, to put it another way, Bush's weeknesses and blind spots can be compensated for and checked by Congress. Kerry's weakenesses--those of leadership--cannot be.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:54 PM on September 14, 2004

clevershark, a very nicely put together list of Bush's recent flip flops.

It amazes me that people not only buy but they chew and swallow the bullshit coming out of the Bush camp.

I've had the economy debate with friends and its amazing when they say that the president can't control the economy. If the president has no power over the economy then who does? And who do they answer to?

And the president isn't responsible for job creation either? That's why he guaranteed all those new jobs that have yet to be created but he's still got a couple of months.....

The RNC bounce is fading, the Bush camp is looking more and more like a flotilla of rats looking to jump ship and the polls have the race dead even now? Oh yeah, just wake me up after the election since nothing good is going to happen between now and then.

Riiiiiiiight!
posted by fenriq at 2:54 PM on September 14, 2004

And there's no one anywhere who can protect the world from my spelling weaknesses....
posted by ParisParamus at 2:55 PM on September 14, 2004

Paris, a question: Why is it so important to you that everybody accept the "inevitable" Bush win? What does it matter to you?

Give Paris a break. I think he got the assignment of delivering the Mefi vote to President Bush.
posted by joaquim at 3:00 PM on September 14, 2004

Iraq and this great Middle East Adventure we're having will eventually come back and bite us in the ass two-fold.

1) We'll have every Muslim street-youth in the third world out for our throats. Have any idea what an Shiite al-tha’r is? Better get fucking used to it.

2) China and the Chinese nationalist government will steamroll over the military defense, biotechnology and telecommunication industries in this country if we give them enough of a free head-start. Do we really think making cheaper jeans is all the Chinese are doing. Take a look at what they're doing with stem-cell research and space technology...

Have fun voting for whoever the fuck you want. The damage has been done, and we can't go back.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:02 PM on September 14, 2004

Paris, a question: Why is it so important to you that everybody accept the "inevitable" Bush win? What does it matter to you?

It's a great technique for dissuading people from voting, for starters. If the election is already in the can, why bother registereing a dissenting vote?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:05 PM on September 14, 2004

Bush's weeknesses and blind spots can be compensated for and checked by Congress. Kerry's weakenesses--those of leadership--cannot be.

Bush as a leader?

My distinct impression is that Bush has been led: led by the administration, with him as puppet figurehead.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:08 PM on September 14, 2004

This article that paints a different picture of the recent polls, Why the Race Is Closer Than People Think. YMMV

Is Bush ahead by a little or a lot? Is it close to a tie ball game or has Bush surged to a commanding lead?

The conventional wisdom inclines to the latter not the former. The reason has a great deal to do with two persistent problems with contemporary polls that--at least at this point in time--tend to considerably inflate Bush's apparent lead. But once you dissect the available data with these problems in mind, a truer picture of the race comes into focus which suggests that the race continues to be very close.

The two problems are: (1) samples that have an unrealistic number of Republican identifiers and hence tend to favor Bush; and (2) the widespread and highly questionable practice of using likely voters (LVs) instead of registered voters (RVs) to measure voter sentiment this far before the election.
posted by plemeljr at 3:10 PM on September 14, 2004

Five, in all seriousness, how does a foregone conclusion translate any more into less Kerry voters than less Bush voters? If anything, I think just the opposite: the protest vote is symbolic, and remains so even if your side loses. I think it's a scratch.

Unless, of course, we're talking about certain networks projecting a Bush victory even before the polls in the Florida Panhandle have closed....
posted by ParisParamus at 3:11 PM on September 14, 2004

hooray! I trolled the troll!

Why must you do that? Who raised you (or didn't)?

Well, Paris, let's just say that the people who raised me come from a country where you've stated you wouldn't mind seeing some "acceptable losses" in the course of your vision for the mideast. So, on their direct behalf, I offer my middle fingernail for your inspection. You exist here to be a burr in peoples' sides. It's only fair that someone play Andrew Jackson to you.
posted by scarabic at 3:11 PM on September 14, 2004

Paris, though most of what you write here offends me simply by the personal attack of smearing me with a brush you've no right or knowledge to wield, I will clarify to you now: I am a moderate. One of the tenants of moderation that I hold dearest is that I will make up my own mind about an issue. You, on the other hand, claim moderation is the act of repulsion from what you find icky. I posit to you, that isn't moderation ... but rather weakness. You express well your ill thoughts of those who demonize Bush, but you won't stop to consider that Bush has done more to damage foreign policy that any President in 50 years (save maybe Reagan). Bush has lied to achieve a radical agenda. The evidence is out there. If you were a moderate, you would actually accept it, as opposed to giving such emotional weight to them youngin's on the subway (YOU KIDS GIT OFFA MY LAWN!!!)

Its obvious that you don't think much of John Kerry, and that's fine with me. But as long as you continue to react to others as if you have some ordained knowledge that those you are reacting to don't have, then you appear as as a fool, a troll and not a moderate at all. Make up your own mind, and then afford others the ability to do so for themselves. In other words, you haven't justified why you proclaim a Bush victory at all; you've just said "neener neener" to those who make you feel less than secure. You've been weak. You've acted in a juvenile fashion. That's not very moderate at all, Paris. Here's a thought: shut up and listen. Speak when you need to act, instead of reacting to your own quivering and fearful ego. You mind find a touch more respect forthcoming from those of us who really are moderates.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:37 PM on September 14, 2004

haha, people still responding to Paris.

I say he wins.
posted by xmutex at 4:24 PM on September 14, 2004

ParisParamus is your run-of-the-mill conservative, really -- a bit more moderate than most Republicans, if anything, since he admits Bush has a few weaknesses.

So why does he send you all so apeshit?
posted by reklaw at 4:51 PM on September 14, 2004

I'm very disillusioned that Al Gore has gone off the deep end.

I thought this article by David Remnick in last week's New Yorker was a pretty cogent rebuttal of that soundbite. Of course, as this presidential race (SBVT etc.) makes all to clear, spin is all that counts.
posted by Zurishaddai at 5:09 PM on September 14, 2004

papercake: are you one of those people who don't like to prepare for the inevitable?

Yeah, he ignores memos entitled 'BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US' too. Just like a certain George W... oh wai
posted by tapeguy at 5:30 PM on September 14, 2004

So why does he send you all so apeshit?

Because, despite its many redeeming qualities, Metafilter is still part of the Internet, and people on the Internet act really stupid.

Really, if you took out all the stupid, there'd be a lot less Internet.
posted by cortex at 5:31 PM on September 14, 2004

Heck, I'm still shocked that PP would describe himself as a moderate!
posted by clevershark at 5:33 PM on September 14, 2004

I think you're all in glaring omission of the most important point here - that the infamous "America's wang" looks so much *bigger* on that proportional map!

I'm monitoring the regression lines with considerable interest... with such noisy data, how good a predictor will they make?
posted by Krrrlson at 5:55 PM on September 14, 2004

PS: I'm very disillusioned that Al Gore has gone off the deep end.

Oh for fuck's sake.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:29 PM on September 14, 2004

Hey, I have a question. What happens when both candidates get 269 electoral votes (as might happen if you go here and toggle both PA and FL)?
posted by drinkcoffee at 7:10 PM on September 14, 2004

No doubt the supreme court steps in, under such circumstances, to hand the election to Bush.
posted by scarabic at 7:19 PM on September 14, 2004

Yeah, he ignores memos entitled 'BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US' too.

That memo NEVER crossed my desk!

Now watch this drive.
posted by papercake at 7:19 PM on September 14, 2004

If the electoral vote is tied, the election is decided by the House of Representatives. Since it's controlled by the Republicans, Bush would probably win.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:26 PM on September 14, 2004

What happens if the electoral vote is a tie.

The House of Representatives do decide a tied electoral vote, but this deciding vote isn't a simple majority rule. Each state basically gets one vote, with the represtentatives for each state polled to determine how their state will vote. It would be possible for the states to deadlock, 25 to 25. More likely we'd see deadlock among some of the states that have an even number of republican and democratic reps.

If this happens, I think we revert to an American Idol style phone vote.
posted by eatitlive at 7:55 PM on September 14, 2004

Will there be a swimsuit competition?
posted by Krrrlson at 9:15 PM on September 14, 2004

I think at that point you'd have some institution which is respected as an impartial and balanced judge of the law step in -- say, the Supreme Court. Or Fox News.

Of course, if we really want justice, we'll make Ralph Nader decide.
posted by namespan at 9:19 PM on September 14, 2004

You know, Paris, if you wanted to be a dick there are real life ways of doing it. You could key cars or trip old ladies for instance. All this internet nonsense is holding you back, son. When your balls drop, let us all know by fucking off.

Paris isn't being a dick, at least not in this case. In fact he could probably make a lot of money as a TV pundit, sadly.
posted by delmoi at 9:23 PM on September 14, 2004

at worst--at worst--he was mistaken on Iraq just makes moderates run away from you. So even if you think the President is a demon, it's totally unconstructive to voice such feelings--basically you deserve to lose.

"mistaken". LOL. At best, he and his whole cadre were delusional. All the information they gave to the UN weapons inspectors was wrong. 100% of it. All they had to do was open their eyes, and they didn't.

Second, while it may not represent all, or even most people who support John Kerry, I will take personal, visceral pleasure in the disappointment of the freaky "Eat Bush, Lick Dick" crowd of young fools I see on the subway here in NYC.

Ah, I see. Bush will win, because it will make you happy if he does. Makes sense, but you seem to have confused yourself with me. It's a common mistake. Actualy one of the main reasons I want Kerry to win, deep down, is to look at all those arrogant wankers such as yourself eat your words. I can feel my feelings much more then I can feel yours, so obviously they're more real

I don't want to live a United States where such vulgarity is acceptable.

Move to afghanistan. Err wait, we bombed them. try saudi arabia. Not too much vulgarity there. Personaly, I like living in the US where freedom of speech is constitutionaly protected. Jesus, it's not my fault you're such a thin-skinned vagina.


Finally, the President in powerful in foreign policy, but that's about it. All this BS about Bush and the economy angers me. If the tax cut wasn't enacted, the economy would be worse than it is now (the deficit, which isn't that big in real terms, is a problem down the road, not today),

10 points for talking-point regurgitation paris! The thing is I remember the people who keep saying this talking about all these WMD in iraq, etc a couple years ago. forgive me if I don't take too much stock in what they have to say.

The President has almost nothing to do with the economy.

Actualy your wrong. Look it up.
posted by delmoi at 9:59 PM on September 14, 2004

I thought this article by David Remnick in last week's New Yorker was a pretty cogent rebuttal of that soundbite. Of course, as this presidential race (SBVT etc.) makes all to clear, spin is all that counts.

That was a fantastic article. If it was posted as an FPP before I missed it--thanks for that.
posted by The God Complex at 10:59 PM on September 14, 2004

You guys watch way too much tv or something. The race hasn't changed that much. Bush got a (smaller than expected) bounce from his convention. The race will be decided by independents in swing states, and the numbers in that regard are still dismal for Bush.

It still looks like Kerry's very likely to win. There's almost no measurement—not even now, post-GOP convention—where Bush isn't doing much worse than any incumbent who's ever been reelected.

Kerry's run a perfectly fine campaign. The people on the left that think that he should have been and should be attacking Bush relentlessly are out-of-touch. The swift boat thing didn't hurt him nearly as much as conventional wisdom has it that it did. I think it's hurt Bush with moderates more than it hurt Kerry, actually.

People are very confused about this election. The people on the right are confused because they and all their friends love Bush and think that's true of everyone in the US. The people on the left are confused because they despise Bush, can't understand why everyone doesn't despise Bush, and expect to reach the indepentents by convincing them that Bush is eeeevillll. All the people that really, really care about the outcome of this election think that the outcome relies upon people like themselves.

It doesn't.

There was a time when independents and moderates liked Bush. They still probably like him personally, think he's a decent guy. But they are very unhappy with the economy and Iraq and don't feel any safer than they did on 9/11. They don't want him another term. They're not thrilled with Kerry—because they don't ever get thrilled about anyone, really—but in spite of his NE liberalism, he is a war hero and seems a decent, smart guy. They're going to vote for him.

Relax.

On Preview: Actualy your wrong. Look it up. On balance, he's right. There are a few strong ways that Presidents are able to influence the economy, but they are very blunt instruments indeed and rarely utilized. Otherwise, the President has less influence on the economy than Congress does. Business cycles and whatnot have more influence. The only thing that comes close to really mattering is the FOMC, and they're notoriously independent of both Presidents and Congress.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:18 AM on September 15, 2004

(...and learn the difference between registered voters and likely voters; why all the methodology for determining likely voters is very suspect and unreliable (and every polling outfit has a different method); and pay attention to what numbers are what in each poll. Ignore outliers; look at six-week long trends not shorter-term wiggles; place polls in context in terms of the conventions; and place polls in context historically. When two polls suddenly say that Bush is leading by nearly ten points, that's not reality. When a bunch of polls over the last while show that Bush has come back from behind, that probably is reality but not unexpected given the timing of the conventions.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:23 AM on September 15, 2004

Thanks mom.
posted by The God Complex at 1:58 AM on September 15, 2004

> The race will be decided by independents in swing states

Its so plainly deterministic by now. Heck, screw states, we're looking at swing counties and swing neighborhoods now. Swing and new voters will decide who is president this time around. And probably not that many will make the difference.

There's something to be said of the drama of the polls. The US is such a big and diverse country, its like have have this tribal need to observe what everyone else is doing. The presidential election is pretty much our big tribal/social event. The polls are how we guage one another. I wonder how different things would be if presidential polling wasn't allowed and if exit polling wasn't allowed.
posted by skallas at 3:05 AM on September 15, 2004

I like that map - as a non-American I don't automatically know which bits of America are voterless wasteland (apart from "the middle"). It does look like Nader votes could significantly influence the outcome in a few states.

From a distance, the US election looks like it could go either way at the moment - but, as some people have touched on, if the unlikely voters can be persuaded to go to the polling stations, then you will probably get a new president.
posted by cell at 3:32 AM on September 15, 2004

I think Paris is basically a decent guy and really didn't deserve the pile on here in this thread, but he wrote something in consecutive sentences that I thought it was emblematic of of cognitive dissonance (either unrecognized or not) that I hear from my Republican friends on a daily basis.

If the tax cut wasn't enacted, the economy would be worse than it is now... The President has almost nothing to do with the economy.

These two things are arguable by themselves, but mostly baseless and can't be backed up with anything other than rhetoric. In the same paragraph, however, the two assertions contradict each other. Not calling out Paris for it specifically, but I am a little frustrated that such things statements pass with such little scrutiny on the parts of those that utter them.
posted by psmealey at 5:19 AM on September 15, 2004

cell - during the last election lots of people (something between 5 and ten percent) said they were going to vote Nader. When all the votes were counted it was something closer to 2.5 percent. And that was during an election run-up where the CW was that there was no real difference between Bush and Gore (how wrong that was).

I'd be totally shocked if Nader even got a single percentage point this time.
posted by bshort at 5:50 AM on September 15, 2004

These two things are arguable by themselves, but mostly baseless and can't be backed up with anything other than rhetoric...I am a little frustrated that such things statements pass with such little scrutiny on the parts of those that utter them.

I had a similar reaction when I heard someone at the Republican convention say they wanted more tax cuts and better schools.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:38 AM on September 15, 2004

Maybe not a single percentage point nationally, sure.. But if my vague concept of how things work in the US is correct, if (for example) NJ goes bush 49.5%, kerry 49%, nader 1.5% then that certainly has an effect, no?
posted by cell at 6:39 AM on September 15, 2004

Boys and girls, get ready, you've convinced yourself that Bush is the devil (which he is not)

True, but Bush does have his support.
posted by papercake at 7:03 AM on September 15, 2004

There will be a lot more internal dissention among Republicans if Bush is re-elected than if he loses.

If he loses, the Party goes into oppositionist mode under the steady hands of Frist and Delay. What they'll do is highly predictable (resisting any tax increases, shooting down liberal judicial appointees).

If Bush is re-elected, however, all of the disagreements which have been smoothed over for several years can safely break out.

* The social moderates are itching for a fight, and they've got stronger and more popular leadership (Giuliani, Schwarzenegger, McCain) than they've had in 30+ years.

* The anti-neocons are, if anything, even more ready to throw down. The problems with Iraq became manifest too close to the election to let them freely express their anger, but, that's just made them even angrier. The entire Bush Sr. group is ready for a BIG push. One thing you can be pretty sure of: 2005 will either see Wolfowitz gone, or Powell gone, and that'll show who won or lost.

* The fiscal conservatives feel ready for prime time too. The tax cuts aren't going to be made permanent without serious cuts in domestic spending to match.

It is going to be a big, unruly battle. I look forward to it.
posted by MattD at 8:19 AM on September 15, 2004

"If Bush is re-elected, however, all of the disagreements which have been smoothed over for several years can safely break out"

Since the "life" of a President is four years, why would these disagreements break out now (if they didn't really four years ago)? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but what's your reasoning process.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:30 AM on September 15, 2004

Since the "life" of a President is four years, why would these disagreements break out now (if they didn't really four years ago)?

I can't speak for MattD, but I think his predictions are entirely plausible. Second-term Presidents don't have to worry about reelection, so other republicans who don't agree with Bush on social or fiscal issues won't feel as pressured to publicly support him.

In fact, if Bush wins, the Republican Presidential candidate for 2008 will likely run on an anti-bush platform. I can see it now: primary season slogans like "take back the party!"

Bush has enjoyed an artificial bubble of support not only in the wake of September 11, but as a result of the 2000 election debacle. Since the race was so close, he didn't really get a mandate, so his party rallied around him to help shake off the stigma of a bad election.
posted by whatnot at 9:39 AM on September 15, 2004

Just coming back late to this thread (and to the subject). electoral-vote.com uses likely voters in its tabulation, and only uses the most recent poll for each state in determining who gets what EV. It doesn't average the polls or take into account historical trends. In effect, it is a weather vane. Here is a reason likely voters (LV) are a bad indication of support:

The other problem that is afflicting the polls and considerably inflating perceptions of Bush's lead is the widespread, and highly questionable, use of LVs, instead of RVs, to report horse race results far in advance of the actual election. The reason why using LVs instead of RVs is a bad idea is simple: the LV approach is being asked to do a job--gauge voter sentiment and how it changes from week-to-week (and even day-to-day)--that it was never designed to do. What the LV approach was designed to do was measure voter sentiment on the eve of an election and predict the outcome. That was, and remains, an appropriate application of the LV approach.
posted by plemeljr at 10:33 AM on September 15, 2004

What the USA needs is a truly left-wing party. As-is, you've got the choice of a conservative Kerry or a neo-conservative puppet Bush. That's hardly a choice!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:33 AM on September 15, 2004

Whatnot -- you haven't quite got my argument right. I don't think that there will be an overtly "anti-Bush" movement of consequence, immediately after the election or in the 2008 race, or at any time in between.

The battles are going to be between factions to see who can be in a position to influence Bush and help him set the tone for policy, with each side (more or less) claiming the mantle of being more pro-Bush than the other.

This is the nature of Republican politics. No one was ever anti-Reagan, they just really disagreed on what it meant to be properly Reaganite.
posted by MattD at 10:40 AM on September 15, 2004

Just coming back late to this thread (and to the subject). electoral-vote.com uses likely voters in its tabulation, and only uses the most recent poll for each state in determining who gets what EV. It doesn't average the polls or take into account historical trends.

Actually, it does. If you click on each state, you get a graph of the polling trends, as well as a projection. The link goes to the map of EVs should every trend play out as of the most recent state poll averages.

Of course, even with trends, a lot of these are vague given the back-and-forth nature of their averages. I find it hard to believe Kerry will actually take Tennessee and while Bush might take Ohio it certainly won't be by 12 points.

Assuming Bush will even agree to them, we're going to have to see what the debates bring to the tables.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:24 AM on September 15, 2004

What the USA needs is a truly left-wing party.

It's called "Canada." Let's just give the GOP the Confederate States of America they always wanted and bring Canada in to make up for it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:27 AM on September 15, 2004

Fuck that idea.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:31 PM on September 15, 2004

MetaFilter: if you took out all the stupid, there'd be a lot less

And what five fresh fish said.
posted by Mitheral at 12:47 PM on September 15, 2004

Let's just give the GOP the Confederate States of America they always wanted and bring Canada in to make up for it.

So basically your idea is to turn two reasonably prosperous nations into an ultra-right shithole and an ultra-left shithole.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:59 PM on September 15, 2004

What the USA needs is a truly left-wing party.

If they could actually put the bong down and maybe register to vote, that might just happen.
posted by psmealey at 9:08 PM on September 15, 2004

FWIW, Rush Limbough reports that Kerry is in the process of losing his grip on New Jersey, Illinois and Minnesota as we speak! Thanks, Governor Jim M--what an egoist.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:22 AM on September 16, 2004

Limbaugh. Said site is now showing 311 electoral votes for Bush....is there an even more biased site where the total is less of a blowout?

To be honest, it is, unfortunately, part of my nature to not be a sore winner. So, the worse things look for Kerry, the less you'lll hear from me--honestly. And when Bush wins. you'll simply get a "Yeah, lets move on."
posted by ParisParamus at 8:15 PM on September 16, 2004