Who will you vote for in 2008? Will you vote by party?
SEE the interactive map on this site!
In 2004: 31 states went to President George W. Bush! RED that is a strong Majority for those who keep pumping the popular vote scenario.
In 2008: There are 25 states ready to go for the GOP regardless of candidate.
There are only 13 committed to the Democratic party and 12 states are undecided!
Maybe it won't be the democratic landslide that pollsters and the liberal media are predicting!
http://www.270towin.com/
2007-10-21 17:44:42 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Im in ohio Im personally leaning republican as of the moment on social conservative grounds. Ive never voted for all one party on a ballot either in fact last time I voted for kerry..Only dem Ill consider this year is Obama, if hes not nominate ill almost certainly vote republican..Although I wont vote for Guliani or McCain under any circumstance.
2007-10-21 18:41:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
A minor factual correction to your question, the number of states won does not indicate who won the popular vote. If I win 31 states by narrow margins and lose 19 states by large margins, I would lose the popular vote.
The projection that you are using is based on the results in 2004. In 2004, President Bush got more than 52.5% (eliminating the effect of third party candidates) in 25 states. John Kerry got more than 52.5% (again eliminating the effect of third party candidates) in 13 states (and the District of Columbia). Those numbers translate into a starting point of 213 electoral votes for the Republican nominee and 183 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee with 142 undecided.
What those numbers mean depends upon the swing from 2004. A 2.5% swing in favor of the Democrat would mean that the Democratic nominee would get 355 electoral votes -- a very significant win.
As the site itself reflects, its current map is based on 2004 results, not current polling. Good try to boost your moralebut it might help to actually look at polling data from the individual states which show a swing that puts even some of those red states at risk.
2007-10-21 18:22:31 · answer #2 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You can't go on the number of states alone. Yes, there are more "safe" Republican states than "safe" Democratic ones, but the safe Democratic states have more electoral votes so the gap is a lot narrower than you would think just by looking at a map and seeing a huge sea of red.
Giuliani would be the Republicans' best bet for swing states. The conservatives don't like him but they'll certainly pick him over whoever the Democrats offer up (*cough*Hillary*cough*). He'll make states like New Hampshire, Oregon, Wisconsin and possibly Maine bigger possibilities for the GOP.
2007-10-21 19:22:20 · answer #3 · answered by soupisgoodfood 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. All states are undecided as of now.
2. 26 of the states don't have "faithful elector" laws which bind their electors to vote the way the people did in the general election.
3. Most of the "mainstream media" consider the parts of the country between the Eastern seaboard and the Pacific Coast to be "flyover land". And most of those media types based in Manhattan think if one goes west of the mall in Paramus New Jersey one falls off the edge of the earth.
4. It matters little which party controls the White House or the Congress. Both parties have abandoned their roots and core beliefs to engaging in a savage game of chasing the campaign contributions, no matter what the source or what the cost. The Republicans have sold out to the Christian Falangists and the Democrats have bought a reheated bowl of porridge from the same group of folks who sent the party into the toilet after the 1972 convention.
2007-10-21 18:15:20 · answer #4 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Well, aren't all the states still undecided?
But being from Ohio, who's to say. I think most people here vote on who the candidate is rather than party lines. Both parties have offered Ohioans crap lately, so what does it matter what flavor it is. We'll see how many of the candidates start wearing Red Sox caps and make note.
2007-10-21 17:51:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think it's a sad commentary on "Democracy" when elections are decided by state, party, and before the election even happens.
I think each person should vote for the candidate they think best represents their interests, and that party and state shouldn't have a damn thing to do with it.
2007-10-21 17:48:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
My state will unfortunately go for Hillary. It ALWAYS goes for the liberal Democrat - liberal fruits & nuts in CA.
GO HUCKABEE!
2007-10-21 18:57:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/state-polls.html
Interesting thing is that Clinton is the winner of the "Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?" Zogby poll at 50%, which is opposite of the normal poll numbers. http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/most-voters-would-never-vote-for-ron-paul-hillary-clinton.html
Even more interesting is the straw polls.
http://www.usastrawpolls.com/
2007-10-21 18:23:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I don't vote by party. That's what causes trouble.
2007-10-21 18:02:12 · answer #9 · answered by VPOC 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
well I'm in Arizona and will be voting for Ron Paul, and hope he wins
2007-10-21 18:09:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋