Can Bush win California and Illinois?

[© tweed]

Hear me out.

Lets say Bush gets 54% on November 2nd.  He wins comfortably.  But does he still lose these two states narrowly?

I expect him to carry Washington, Michigan, Oregon, etc. easily.  But Bush has not run an ad in these two states (except for some Las Vegas spillovers in desert California).  Does this keep him from victory in these two states.

My final prediction mpa has Bush winning Illinois but now that I have thought it through I might give that state back to Kerry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hear me out.

Lets say Bush gets 54% on November 2nd.  He wins comfortably.  But does he still lose these two states narrowly?

I expect him to carry Washington, Michigan, Oregon, etc. easily.  But Bush has not run an ad in these two states (except for some Las Vegas spillovers in desert California).  Does this keep him from victory in these two states.

My final prediction mpa has Bush winning Illinois but now that I have thought it through I might give that state back to Kerry.

What makes you think Bush will win California or Illinois?
Kerry is just as likely to win Georgia.

[Keystone Phil]

I think that even in a Bush landslide, CA and IL will still go to Kerry. Maybe narrowly but Kerry will still get them.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Hear me out.

Lets say Bush gets 54% on November 2nd.  He wins comfortably.  But does he still lose these two states narrowly?

I expect him to carry Washington, Michigan, Oregon, etc. easily.  But Bush has not run an ad in these two states (except for some Las Vegas spillovers in desert California).  Does this keep him from victory in these two states.

My final prediction mpa has Bush winning Illinois but now that I have thought it through I might give that state back to Kerry.

I guess it depends on what Nader gets.  If Kerry looks truly hopeless for some reason, Nader might get 5 or 6% in California, which could flip the state to Bush.  But Kerry would still win in a 2-way race.

[Lunar]

We get a few ads on national channels (CNN, FOX), but that's about it.

If Bush is +10, like you predict, then it could be close.  I think Bush will have to be +12 to carry Cal though.

[© tweed]

Well I have decided Kerry will win these two states by 49-48% margins.  They will be VERY close.

[AuH2O]

I've thought about the same question... it's kind of hard to believe Democrats dominate Illinois so completely, given the demographics (on paper is tooks lean dem more than solid dem). But the Democratic Party has done very well there and if Bush ignores it it's going to be hard for him to win.

On the other hand, he lost by 12% in 2000, and a 54% win would make it close at the very least. Same with Cali.

If Bush pulls a 1984, he will win both. But at 53-54%, I say he nabs California but not Illinois... though that sounds too bizarre for me to really think could happen. Nader a factor in Cali of course.

You know, if Nader is on the ballot in Vermont (I assume he will be)... Bush could carry it. He lost by 10% in 2000, but if progressives sense a big Bush win, it makes a Nader vote more valuable than a Kerry vote (well, at least I could see people making that argument).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Well I have decided Kerry will win these two states by 49-48% margins.  They will be VERY close.

What event do you predict as swinging the election so decisively to Bush?

[© tweed]

Well I have decided Kerry will win these two states by 49-48% margins.  They will be VERY close.

What event do you predict as swinging the election so decisively to Bush?

Osama

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well I have decided Kerry will win these two states by 49-48% margins.  They will be VERY close.

What event do you predict as swinging the election so decisively to Bush?

Osama

An optimally timed Osama?
About 2 weeks before the election would be optimal for Bush.

[Citizen James]

I don't see this as a likely scenerio, but in a 'what if' a lot would depend on the specifics of the 'What if'.   In a heavy landslide with a big Nader spoiler, maybe.   On the flip side, Kerry could take some mountain states if he had a landslide and a big Badnarik spoiler.

Neither of these are all that likely, and the electorate is so split I doubt most october suprise possibilities (Usoma captured, mass hiring for a huge government program decreases unemployment, another big 'tax refund'...) would sway that many voters at this stage.  Plus, it's my understanding he has a team ready for damage control and response on any number of 'suprising turns of events', so I don't think he'll be caught flat footed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

no.

he has no chance in either.

[tinman64]

Only if Bush approches the upper 50s in the popular vote will he win these two states.  He is too polarizing a figure in these two areas to win them with anything less than 57-58%  nationally.

[Lunar]

Only if Bush approches the upper 50s in the popular vote will he win these two states.  He is too polarizing a figure in these two areas to win them with anything less than 57-58%  nationally.

He was "only" 12% behind in 2000, I don't see why he wouldn't carry it if he was 16% ahead (57%) nationally.

[opebo]

Hear me out.

Lets say Bush gets 54% on November 2nd.  He wins comfortably.  But does he still lose these two states narrowly?

I expect him to carry Washington, Michigan, Oregon, etc. easily.  But Bush has not run an ad in these two states (except for some Las Vegas spillovers in desert California).  Does this keep him from victory in these two states.

My final prediction mpa has Bush winning Illinois but now that I have thought it through I might give that state back to Kerry.

How can I see your final prediction map?

[MODU]

I've always said that my fantasy election day surprise would be California going for Bush.  He lost to Gore by 1.3M votes (or 12%).  This was pre-Arnold, pre-9/11, and at the start of the state-wide energy crisis.  

Davis is now gone, replaced by pop-culture figure Arnold (who has done a much better job than anyone expected, and is currently carring a 60% approval rating - and is a Republican by title), 9/11 (like it or not, but this still ads a small boost to Bush), and the energy crisis is ended, with the companies involved settling with the state in various court cases.  

Now, none of this will just give California over to Bush, but to eliminate the possibility of Bush gaining 7 points from last year is narrow-sighted.  There is always a chance.  Slim, but a chance none the less.

[nomorelies]

If Bush wins California and Illinois then i will believe in god

[MODU]

Maybe you should.  You might just be happier in life.  hahaha

[classical liberal]

You know, if Nader is on the ballot in Vermont (I assume he will be)... Bush could carry it. He lost by 10% in 2000, but if progressives sense a big Bush win, it makes a Nader vote more valuable than a Kerry vote (well, at least I could see people making that argument).

Bush lost by 10 in 2000 with Nader getting 6.  I don't think that Nader could get much higher than 6 points in VT, even in the case of Kerry defections.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

People need to learn that all liberals HATE Nader now. There will be no defections to him, he is universely loathed by the left. Ever notice that it's always REPUBLICANS on this board defending him?

[MODU]

All candidates deserve the right to partake in all aspects of the election, and not blocked.  Nader, for how much of a pain in the butt he can be, deserves fair and equal access to the election, just like any other 3rd party/Independent candidate.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

See, Republicans always say things like that. Do Democrats here ever? No. Why? Because Democrats hate Nader. Who's going to defect to him?

What does the far far left think of him? Go read DU. I once saw someone bragging about spitting on people collecting signatures for him.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=718538

man, that far left sure loves Nader! You can bet there will be some massive defections to him!

[jacob_101]

If Bush won 54% of the vote, I could see him winning CA but not IL.  IL has a large black population that makes it too difficult to win there, but CA is more fluid.

[MODU]

That just shows the maturity of the extreme left-side (the fact that you admit to reading DU scares me).  After all, it was the Democrats impeding Naders Constitutional right to collect signatures just a month ago.  It's a sign of ugliness and down right panic within your party.  Maybe losing to Bush this year will send a clear signal through your party that it's time for a revamp.  The only thing holding the various Democratic factions together right now is the Anti-Bush push and not your candidate.