home

The Polls - 11/2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 07:08:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Both in 2000 and 2004, the popular vote loser won or came close to winning the Presidency. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote and then the Supreme Court stole Florida on his behalf (to be fair, the Republican House of Representatives would have stolen it for him as well.) In 2004, John Kerry would have won the Presidency with a 120,000 vote shift in Ohio despite losing the popular vote by 2.5% (over 3 million votes.) So could it happen this year? In a word, no.

Barring a miracle, Barack Obama will win the popular vote on Tuesday. So how could John McCain win the Presidency without winning the popular vote? Winning squeakers in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana? He still loses the Presidency even if he does all that. Here's the thing - McCain will have to win in Pennsylvania or Colorado and Nevada as well to win the Presidency. And if McCain wins in all those states, he will win the popular vote.

The polls show Obama winning by between 5 and 13 points. While it is true that the Presidential Election is 50 different elections it is also true that if he wins the aggregate election, John McCain will win the popular vote.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Greatest American Presidents | Tightening? Uh, No >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Polls - 11/2 | 24 comments (24 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Battleground state (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Lora on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    That makes PA a battleground state.

    Some problems with the vote in PA:

    1. No early voting.

    2. Most of the state uses unverifiable electronic voting machines, shown to be riddled with errors, prone to breakdowns, and proven to be very easily manipulated (hacked).  (Reminder: there is absolutely NO WAY to verify that an individual vote on one of these machines is counted as intended.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is misinformed.)

    3. The NAACP and an election reform group had to go to court (WITHOUT the help of those supposed thousands of lawyers of the DNC) to require that paper ballots be issued if half of the voting machines in a precinct break down.  The law provides the opportunity for paper ballots if only ONE machine breaks down, but they had to go to court anyway.

    4.  PA doesn't even have nearly enough paper ballots, so this ruling might not even be enforced.

    5. The person running the election in Philadelphia, Marge Tartaglione, thinks there are no long lines, and the people who consider them a form of disenfranchisement are the same people who would wait all night for an ipod or baseball or concert tickets.

    6.  GOOD LUCK, OBAMA AND PA VOTERS!


    Thanks, nice to know how different it is this time (none / 0) (#1)
    by barryluda on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 07:15:22 AM EST
    I always get confused thinking about the relationship between the EV on the popular vote.  The electoral map used by the Princeton Election Consortium, I think, makes it easier to understand your point.

    Ras holds with O + 5 (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lil on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 08:41:04 AM EST


    I'm just curious why you think that a House vote (none / 0) (#3)
    by steviez314 on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 08:51:55 AM EST
    would mean the election was stolen.

    While the outcome would have sucked just the same, at least the House procedure would have had a basis in law, intead of the Supremes just making stuff up.

    Elected officials would have had to be responsible for their actions in that case, rather than unelected, lifetime judges.

    I do not understand your question (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 08:58:22 AM EST
    A House vote for Bush for the Florida electoral votes in 2000 would of course have been stealing them since Gore won Florida.

    The Supreme Court acted within its power too.

    Your question makes no sense to me.

    Parent

    I'm a math and science kind of guy (none / 0) (#6)
    by steviez314 on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 09:19:53 AM EST
    so I can claim that "anyone won Florida" is unprovable by any measurable method, given the nature of the vote counting, recount and ballot examination.  It was always in the Florida Legislature's power to declare Bush the winner and send his slate to the electoral college.

    I think the Supreme Court just made it up as they went along, while there was a specific law, 3 U.S.C. 15, that would have dealt with the House accepting or rejecting a slate of electors.

    I feel the Court actually created a constitutional crisis where one wasn't needed, given the very explicit guidelines in the Florida Constitution, US Constitution and  US Code for handling such a dispute involving electoral slates.

    Parent

    You can claim (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 09:29:15 AM EST
    whatever you want. does not make it true.

    Al gore won Florida in 2000.

    Parent

    The recount was stopped....that's how they (none / 0) (#5)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 09:13:00 AM EST
    "won."  All the studies done afterwards proved that Gore won the election fair and square, hanging chads and all.  For the Supreme Court to stop the recount and subsequently declare Bush the winner was lawlessness at it's most blatent.  Same thing if it had gone to the House.  The only legal way to determine the winner was to count the votes.  The house procedure you are talking about would have had no "basis in law."

    Parent
    That's not what I heard ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 09:35:31 AM EST
    but I may be wrong. My understanding is that after the election was over 'they' went back and counted all the ballots using the recount rules that the Gore campaign was fighting for. Under that recount, Bush still carried FL.

    If discernible voter intentions were actually counted, Gore undoubtedly had more votes, but that's not the same thing as saying Gore would have won if the recount had been allowed to proceed.

    Again, I may be mistaken in this, and if so would be glad to have a reference to set my mind straight on the subject.

    Parent

    Wrong and irrelevant (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    On the recount ordered by the Florida courts, Gore won.

    Parent
    How is it irrelevant to the comment (none / 0) (#11)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:17:55 AM EST
    ... I'm responding to?

    As for being mistaken, if so, I'm not the only one. From Wikipedia:

    The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.

    Further:
    A judge supervising the recount told the Orlando Sentinel that he had been open to the idea of examining the overvotes, and had been planning to discuss the matter at a hearing when the US Supreme Court stopped the recount.[Emphasis added.]

    This seems to me to fall short of 'the recount ordered by the Florida courts'.

    It then goes on to list various recount criteria scenarios, under which Gore wins some and Bush wins some.

    In light of all this, it seems to me the matter remains controversial.


    Parent

    Wikipedia is wrong (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:21:36 AM EST
    Not for the first time.

    Parent
    New York Times (none / 0) (#13)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:28:36 AM EST
    Special Report: The 2000 Election
    If the U.S. had not stopped the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.

    Results: Winner, George W. Bush
    Margin, +493 votes

    You act as though I'm making this stuff up, and you counter it only with bald assertions.

    Parent

    Um, that is simply wrong. (none / 0) (#14)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    For instance, had overvotes in which a name was punched AND written in been counted, Gore would have won by thousands of votes.


    Parent
    what you are citing is 8 years out of date. (none / 0) (#15)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:37:11 AM EST
    Other counts were made, later, by reputable sources (not the NYT, obviously) and Gore was conclusively the winner.

    Parent
    So, give a citation (none / 0) (#16)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:47:29 AM EST
    I don't pretend to have definitive knowledge on this and am willing to learn more.

    Parent
    Greg palast has other citations (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    (not his own work). I would search on gregpalast.com for other, later, recounts.

    Parent
    Google can be your friend. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    Type in "recount of florida ballots 2000 election" and start reading - but skip Wiki, it's not reliable because anyone can put anything there.  Read the links from Consortium News and others.  You'll find the truth.

    Parent
    Vindicated (none / 0) (#20)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 02:35:05 PM EST
    Just did as you suggested.

    First non-Wikipedia entry (NWE):

    Florida recount study: Bush still wins

    2nd NWE (and this one I find very telling):
    ... because of misjudgments about what was likely on the ballots, both candidates pursued strategies that were diametrically opposite to their best interests during the recount. Any discussion of recount outcomes must note that the media consortium ballot analysis used impartial, multiple reviews of ballots and computerized application of standards, none of which would have happened in an actual hand recount. For that reason, the ballot review is a best approximation of what was on the ballots, but not a firm prediction of what would have happened in a recount.[Emphasis added.]

    In fairness, this article does go on to list scenarios under which Gore would have won the recount.
    3rd NWE:
    In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

    4th NWE does not contain anything material to the question under discussion.
    5th NWE is an entry I already cited in a previous comment.
    6th NWE is, finally, an entry that is unequivocal in Gore's favor:
    If the votes in Florida had been counted by non-partisan election officials in compliance with the law, Gore would have won Florida.

    In light of all this I stand by my original assertion that what would have happened if the US Supreme Court had not stopped the recount remains uncertain.

    Parent
    You are mistaken. Go read the NORA report, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 03:04:41 PM EST
    specifically the section Candidate Outcomes.  It says that if ALL the ballots had been counted statewide that Gore would have won.  It goes on and gives four different scenarios and they all result in a Gore win.  The only way Bush would have won a recount was to count only a "small subset of ballots."  That, my friend, isn't counting ALL the ballots.  Read the report for yourself.  Gore Won.  End of argument.

    Parent
    I told you already, OVERVOTES (none / 0) (#22)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 05:34:45 PM EST
    were the area in which Gore would have cleaned up.
    There were tens of thousands of ballots which were thrown out because they had a name written in and a candidate punched, even though the name and the punch matched up!
    You specifically mentioned undervotes (hanging chads and the like) while not mentioning overvotes.
    Either you are disingenuous or a complete naif.
    Instant google "expertise" is so passe`.


    Parent
    BTW, counting overvotes makes (none / 0) (#23)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    a lot more sense than counting undervotes.
    There can be absolutely no doubt about the voters' intention in those cases whether the written in name matches the mechanically selected name.

    Parent
    Yes, you are mistaken. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Angel on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM EST
     

    Parent
    TIPP (none / 0) (#24)
    by atlmom on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 06:41:19 PM EST
    I saw TIPP had O+2 - what has been the trend there?  I hear some pundits say it has been an accurate pollster?  

    The Polls - 11/2 | 24 comments (24 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment