Best case scenario

[Gustaf]

This kind of depends on the defintion of best case scenario. If it turns out that Bush staged 9/11 to be able to selll oil contracts to his and his buddie's companies in Texas after the occupation of Iraq, for example, he could lose rather a lot. Etc. Unless one supposes an extreme of some sort occuring I think Bush can be fairly sure of breaking 200, or at least 150. Kerry is more vulnreable though.

[Gustaf]

This kind of depends on the defintion of best case scenario. If it turns out that Bush staged 9/11 to be able to selll oil contracts to his and his buddie's companies in Texas after the occupation of Iraq, for example, he could lose rather a lot. Etc. Unless one supposes an extreme of some sort occuring I think Bush can be fairly sure of breaking 200, or at least 150. Kerry is more vulnreable though.

by best case scenario, I mean nothing really really drastic happens, but what could happen is Iraqi civil war, economic downturn, etc.  If something crazy comes out (like if 9-11 was staged, etc.) Bush could lose all 50 states.

If you don't rule anything out, either guy could get 538 EV's.

OK, well, in that case I think the electorate is so polarized that Bush could count on a lot of states. Let me see...



That would be it I think.

[Gustaf]

Also Indiana to the Dems, if Bayh is the VP.

OK, if he is, and everything else goes the right way I agree it could happen.

[Gustaf]

I doubt that Indiana would go to the Dem even with Bayh on the tickker having said that where he on the ticket IN would be very interesting to watch...it could certianly be close....Generally your map is pretty much the greatest extent to which the Dems could hope to beat any candidate, however i wonder if GA and IN are going for Bush why not NC even with Edwards the state is as conservative as either IN or GA...

This is the best case scenario for the DEms, since that's the point of the thread...

[Gustaf]

Yeah i know...i was just saying that if you have GA and IN as GOP in the best case senario then NC would also be in the GOP collum as its on a parr with both GA and IN in terms of its conservatism...  

Yeah, that's actually right. GA is in fact more Dem than NC, judging byu previous results at least...but the map looks more coherent now, wouldn't you say?

[Gustaf]

Like I've said 35 times before the E.C. keeps balance between the small and large states. The E.C. keeps N.Y., LA. and whatever else big cities from choosing the president every time.

That's nonsense. I live in a country with complete PP and our capitol is pretty out of step with the rest of the country. Rural people usually win our elections. Turnout is lower in the big cities than elsewhere and there is no sign of them dominating.

[Gustaf]

How is that an argument for keeping the EC? Are you saying that the less densely populated the land around you is, the more important your vote should be?

Unless you are using the Opebo line of logic, and saying that since the EC helps Republicans, it is good by definition.

That is my line of thinking, yes.  But in addition its also my reason for thinking that the EC will never go away - it so clearly favours Republicans, and they will always control enough states to prevent a constitutional amendment passing.  Hopefully.

You never know, people might turn moral on you one day...

[Gustaf]

Here is a example why we must keep the E.C.

Ok say we take New York, Miami, LA, Detroit, Boston. Whats that about 15 - 20 million? Say a Hitler type facist or some bad dude comes up and wants to run for president. If he has support from the cities he has a very very very good chance of winning. At least with the E.C. their is a better chance of keeping a true tyrant out.

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you implying that urban people are more likely to vote for a tyrant than rural peopel? If you are, show me some proof please, if you're not than your example makes no sense at all. I think all of you have no idea what you're talking about. There's is no sign at all as far as I can see of voters being favoured just b/c thy live in big cities.

[Gustaf]

Here is a example why we must keep the E.C.

Ok say we take New York, Miami, LA, Detroit, Boston. Whats that about 15 - 20 million? Say a Hitler type facist or some bad dude comes up and wants to run for president. If he has support from the cities he has a very very very good chance of winning. At least with the E.C. their is a better chance of keeping a true tyrant out.

I don't know what you're talking about. Are you implying that urban people are more likely to vote for a tyrant than rural peopel? If you are, show me some proof please, if you're not than your example makes no sense at all. I think all of you have no idea what you're talking about. There's is no sign at all as far as I can see of voters being favoured just b/c thy live in big cities.

Large numbers of people living in small areas are much more likely to be swayed by empty rhetoric and mob mentalities.  In the city you grow accustomed to being taken care of by social services.  Your trash is picked up by the city.  Your water comes from the city.  Your landlord is regulated by the city.  If you lose your job and your home, you count on the ciry to take care of you.  Such mentality is more easily ensnared by totalitarianism.  Thus, it's no huge wonder that many large cities tend to elect socialistic politicians from time to time.

In rural areas, people are used to fending for themselves, taking care of themselves, thinking for themselves.  It's frontier mentality, and such a mindset is much more reluctant to give up freedom.

In Sweden most big cities lean right. I see your points, but I don't think you're right. Unless I'm mistaken Hitler got most of his support from Evangelical farmers.