will either candidate top 50% in the popular vote?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

i vote no

[AuH2O]

Bush, but not by much.

[khirkhib]

Kerry is going to get 52% of the vote.

[Reignman]

The popular vote will probably look something like this:
Kerry--49%
Bush--48%
Nader--2%
Other--1%

[bergie72]

If Nader gets his usual 2 or 3%, plus the other candidates pull a percent, I think the rest is going to be split.  

Unless something unusual happens in the next three months, if either one breaks 46% PV, I'll be surprised.

[Reignman]

Buchanan isn't running though, and Nader's support will probably erode just like it did in 2000.

[IowaLibert]

I think Kerry's losses on the left will be minimal - Nader's going to be a fading presense (maybe withdraw?) and the Green's Cobb won't be able to pick up the slack.  Total "defections" from the left... not much more than 1% of the nation-wide vote (obviously more in certain states).  I think Kerry just makes it at like 50.2%.

[Lunar]

Nader will lose some votes due to not being on the ballot in a couple big states (Texas, Georgia).  Nader's making it on the ballot in most if not all of the swing states, but if we're dealing strictly with the national total I'm curious what kind of an effect some of those states will have.

Edit: I did a rough calculation and Nader will probably be getting somewhere around 0.3%-0.4% less because of the states he's missing, depending on his nation wide total and write-in votes for states he's not on the ballot in.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I think..
Bush-50%
Kerry-48%
Nader-1%
Other-1%

[Schmitz in 1972]

I think at this moment it's fairly sure that for the fourth straight election America will give neither candidate a majority. Nader, Badnarik, Cobb, and Peroutka will combine just enough to prevent Bush or Kerry from topping 50%. I don't like how America can't agree on one candidate recently. Not since 1880-1892 has America failed to give one man a majority four times straight.

[Lunar]

Moment of irony: The poll for this thread is currently at 50% yes, 50% no.

[Giant Saguaro]

Yeah, I think somebody could get 50% - I don't know about above 50%, but 50 is within reason for certain. 49-48 is the safe bet right now as far as I'm concerned, at least for now.

[© tweed]

Bush will get about 54%

[MODU]

Bush - 51-53%

[Lunar]

Bush will get about 54%

That's pretty subsantial, around a 10% victory if you factor in 2% for third parties.

[IowaLibert]

Bush will get about 54%

That's pretty subsantial, around a 10% victory if you factor in 2% for third parties.

I agree.  Barring something huge (terrorist attack, the 2 Johns caught with more than their arms around each other, make up your own, etc.), no one's getting 54% this year.

[Reds4]

My pure guess is the winner gets 49.2% of the vote.

[WalterMitty]

my calculations have bush with 61.46% of the vote.












haha.  but seriously, i doubt either candidate will get 50%.

[King]

yes

Bush 50%
Kerry 49%

1 percent split between the other candidates...Badnarik Gets 3rd place which strongest showing in New Mexico (he is running TV ads there)

[Lunar]

1 percent split between the other candidates...Badnarik Gets 3rd place which strongest showing in New Mexico (he is running TV ads there)

He could have run them in Alaska or Wyoming, very interesting that he chose the most competitive of the small states to try and make his mark in.  New Hampshire is too expensive.

[King]

1 percent split between the other candidates...Badnarik Gets 3rd place which strongest showing in New Mexico (he is running TV ads there)

He could have run them in Alaska or Wyoming, very interesting that he chose the most competitive of the small states to try and make his mark in.  New Hampshire is too expensive.

Northeastern New Mexico is Libertarian for Badnarik to do well. I think Browne came in strong behind Nader and Perot in 2000/1996 and the Badnarik campaign seems to be more organized thanks to the internet.

[IowaLibert]

He could have run them in Alaska or Wyoming, very interesting that he chose the most competitive of the small states to try and make his mark in.  New Hampshire is too expensive.

I think the decision is based on what's happened as a consequence of Nader 2000 in Florida.  If you flip an election, you get tons of media coverage and you still have people falling all over you 4 years later.  Even getting 10-15% in a state that nonetheless remains solidly Repub or Demo isn't going to get you that kind of bang for the buck.

[Lunar]

Exactly. Nader gets his coverage from New Hampshire and Florida, not from Alaska where he got 10% in.