Who lost Ohio..?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I refuse to register with the New York Times.

If you could post the article in segments (if its really good) it would be appreciated.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I decline to give the New York Times information about myself.

BTW, did you ever set up the web site you mentioned about six months ago?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I decline to give the New York Times information about myself.

BTW, did you ever set up the web site you mentioned about six months ago?

Here is a text only link
Text Only Link

Yes I did - I limited it to 2000 subscribers - was too cheap to buy any more bandwidth

If you have any subscriber space available, please let me know.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not good at maths, but I don't think that 37% is a majority...

Looks like my previous estimate of 38d/37r/25o was pretty close.

I agree the GOP does not have a "majority" in the sense that they can run the proverbial "Ham Sandwich" and win Nationally, but they do have a modest edge. (The GOP could run a homophobic/extreamist far right crazy in say, oh, Oklahoma, and likely win as a point of departure)

The 2004 exit polls had it 37/37/26 Rep/Dem/GOP (Actually if you take it out to the "tenths" the GOP won by about 0.8%) - But some of the Dems 37 is the so called "Dixiecrats" vote - GOP in everything by name only.

Self Identified GOP voters broke 93/6 for Bush (+87%) while self Identified Dem voters went 89/11 for Kerry (+78) - and the GOP voters being more solidly behind their candidate than Dems are behind theirs is a fairly consistent thing.

What it boils down to is the GOP has, due to their almost monolithic GOP loyalty is "about" a 3% or so national advantage right now.

This is a quite modest advantage, but it will tilt a close race to the GOP.

An approximate analogy is the Senate races in Maine.  Maine is a modestly but not crushingly democratic state.  If there was a fresh senate race with no incumbant, equal money and +/- equal candidates the Democrat would usually win a senate race in Maine, not always, but more often than not.

As it turns out, Maine has 2 very fine GOP Senators (Snowe & Collins) because both of the senators happen to be good to excellent candidates and very moderate members of the GOP

Nationally, the Dems now need the same thing - their Candidate needs to be a bit better and a little more moderate than the GOP candidate - not by a ton - but a bit better.

If the GOP runs say a Bob Dole, they likely lose, if the Dems run a Bill Clinton skill level candidate they likely win.

If it's "Dead Fish A" versus "Dead Fish B" the GOP fish will probably win.

Think of it as a .520 baseball club against a .480 baseball club.

The .520 club will over the course of the season win more games, but each individual game might turn on a strong pitching performance or a single great play...

Re: Higher Turnout... I personally think that the higher turnout *did* help Kerry. If turnout was as low as it was in 2000, I'm pretty sure that Bush would have won big.

Correct.