I'll update as more things happen

SOLID DEMOCRAT: 194 Electoral Votes | 16 States (15+DC)
Maine (4)
New Hampshire (4)
Vermont (3)
Massachusetts (12)
Rhode Island (4)
Connecticut (7)
New York (31)
New Jersey (15)
Delaware (3)
Maryland (10)
Illinois (21)
Washington (11)
Oregon (7)
California (55)
District of Columbia (3)
Hawaii (4)

LEAN DEMOCRAT: 65 Electoral Votes | 6 States
Pennsylvania (21)
Michigan (17)
Minnesota (10)
Iowa (7)
New Mexico (5)
West Virginia (5)

TOSSUP: 30 Electoral Votes | 3 States
Wisconsin (10)
Missouri (11)
Alabama (9)

LEAN REPUBLICAN: 67 Electoral Votes | 5 States
Florida (27)
Ohio (20)
Arkansas (6)
Colorado (9)
Nevada (5)

SOLID REPUBLICAN: 182 Electoral Votes | 21 States
Virginia (13)
North Carolina (15)
South Carolina (8)
Indiana (11)
Kentucky (8)
Tennessee (11)
Georgia (15)
Mississippi (6)
Louisiana (9)
North Dakota (3)
South Dakota (3)
Nebraska (5)
Kansas (6)
Oklahoma (7)
Texas (34)
Montana (3)
Wyoming (3)
Idaho (4)
Utah (5)
Arizona (10)
Alaska (3)

TOTAL LIKELY DEMOCRATIC: 259 Electoral Votes | 22 States (21+DC)
TOTAL LIKELY REPUBLICAN: 249 Electoral Votes | 26 States
TOTAL IN CLOSE CONTEST: 30 Electoral Votes | 3 States


My Opinion: Trim the Bush, Flush the John, Stop the War! Michael Badnarik for US President 2004.

i agree with most, maybe put ohio in tossup though. i haven't been keeping up with this stuff lately though

VOTE BUSH

I really hope bush wins
yes i don't agree on his war ethics but I so totally respect him for not shifting his opinion when he wasn't supported unlike kerry who can't seem to decide what he wants

The U.S has the worst system ever. We should just go by popular votes.

It's so pathetic that there isn't even one candidate who is actually worthy of the presidency.

I agree.


But I think Bush will win. I heard Nader's numbers are climbing, which means that can affect the Democratic percentage.

The Libertarian Michael Badnarik is polling higher than Ralph Nader is ... third parties are more likely to affect Bush than Kerry this time around.

How would that be though? I would think it would be vice versa.

A lot of Republicans are PISSED at George spending so much money.

If you remember, in 1992 Ross Perot the third party guy got 19% of the vote (compared to Nader getting 2.5%) -- that 19% came directly from Bush Sr and gave the election to Clinton.

actually that sounds about right.

Bush is a candidate worthy of presidency.

LMAO! Always a comedic touch to Minda's posts.

NEW: BUSH HAS MISSED THE BALLOT DEADLINE IN ALABAMA.

Bush will have to run on a write-in ballot in Alabama. This makes him unlikely to win by a huge margin like he did in 2000. This moves Alabama to the tossup category.

West Virginia's legislature is working at changing the ballot access laws, but if that doesn't work, West Virginia will lean to Kerry now.

TOTAL CHANGES:
Alabama: Solid Bush TO Tossup
West Virginia: Tossup TO Lean Kerry
Bush: -9
Kerry: +5

that would be my philosophy, but i've never heard of a third party doing anything but taking votes, let alone winning. than again i've only lived through 3 presidents.

Recent Third Parties

1992: Ross Perot -- 19% of the vote
1996: Ross Perot -- 10% of the vote
2000: Ralph Nader -- 3% of the vote

The point for a third party is NOT to win -- it is to convince one of the two MAJOR parties to adopt some of its ideas -- just look at how the PRogressive Party deeply influenced the Democrats.