Election Prediction: Analyzing the Election and a Tenuous Kerry Victory

This election is very clearly coming down to the wire, with people having virtually no clue what to expect on Tuesday. Will we know the winner? If so, who will it be? If not, why not? The questions can go on and on as almost nothing is determined at this point. Sure, some states are "decided" according to most, but even this is questionable. Even assuming that these determined states do stick to the predicted outcomes, the partial results are not satisfactory for either party. There are enough battleground states still entrenched with undecideds and split votes. However, the battleground states will also be "decided" on Tuesday. What may not be decided on Tuesday is who won the election. One man may have the majority of electoral votes but the other, along with outside organizations, is sure to launch lawsuits aplenty in an attempt to claim, or reclaim, the presidency. Regardless of who will win the election, I predict that the win will not come easily and that the victor will not come out of it a popular president-elect with the entire nation.

Based on two websites, www.electoral-vote.com and www.slate.com, there are still many states still unable to be predicted. The first website, www.electoral-vote.com, has ten states in this category: six barely toward Kerry (PA, MI, MN, IA, NM, and FL), two entirely split (NH and NV), and two barely toward Bush (HI and VA). Slate.com has seven states categorized as "iffy", five for Kerry (NH, OH, WI, MN, and HI), and two for Bush (FL and IA). If all of these states are truly too close to call, and all other states fall the way they are supposed to, the current standings are: Bush 209, Kerry 186 with a total of 12 states amounting to 143 electoral votes unable to be determined.

I will address the states by my predicted winner, starting with the incumbent, Bush. I predict Bush taking victories in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia. Florida, which the websites are split on, will go to Bush by a very close margin, thanks significantly to having a brother who happens to also be the popular governor of the state. New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia are all predicted to go to Bush on Slate.com, and have been leaning that way for much of the elections, Virginia having gone to Republicans since at least the seventies. I predict Kerry taking victory in the other eight states, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Iowa revitalized the Kerry campaign in the primaries and I think will choose him again, though this time it will not be as much of a shock. Iowa, along with its fellow regional states Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio, has a large contingent of blue-collar workers, which should result in a large democratic turnout and a Kerry victory. Pennsylvania, I think, will also go to Kerry, for both the reason of other Great Lakes states, and the similarities between eastern Pennsylvania and its Democratic neighbor, New Jersey. This is especially true since eastern Pennsylvania is similar South Jersey, which is the more Democratic region of the state. New Hampshire borders Kerry’s home state, and the southern portion of the state is essentially a part of the Boston metropolitan area, making Kerry a fairly hometown candidate. I think that Hawaii will go back to the way it had been for the majority of the race and support Kerry.

With those states falling as I have predicted, Kerry would have 279 electoral votes and Bush would have 259. Though 10 electoral votes may seem like a fairly substantial lead, it actually sets up possibility for disaster. If only one of Hawaii, New Hampshire, or Iowa is a wrong prediction by me, the election is still safe for Kerry. A switch in Minnesota or Wisconsin, more likely in Minnesota, would result in a tie. Switching Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Michigan would result in a Bush reelection. Therefore, a predicted Kerry election is very tenuous. Even if on Wednesday morning it appears to have occurred, it may not stand.

Either side has the potential to launch a legal attack on the other in order to secure victory, and I believe that they will. I do not know what the attack will be over as any state could turn out to be this years Florida. The most feared result is a slim Kerry victory partially attributed to a change in Colorado policy on giving electoral votes, where they may begin to give electoral votes proportional to percent of the vote. However, I do not think that Colorado’s Amendment 36 will succeed, and therefore this will be a non-issue. If it does come under attack, I believe that if the attack is on the constitutionality of the retroactive behavior in the Amendment, it will be overturned and result in a Bush victory.

Through all of this, I am predicting a Kerry victory in the electoral college, followed by Bush lawsuits which will not succeed. Also, I think that Bush may win the popular vote and yet lose the election, which would be fittingly ironic. Kerry's candidacy was almost declared dead a few times throughout this election, and I think that the fact that it is still alive will pull through to victory, just as the Packers pulled through against the Redskins. The Redskins are also supposed to be a barometer for the election, and therefore Kerry should win the election just as I am predicting.

Election Prediction:

This election is very clearly coming down to the wire, with people having virtually no clue what to expect on Tuesday. Will we know the winner? If so, who will it be? If not, why not? The questions can go on and on as almost nothing is determined at this point. Sure, some states are "decided" according to most, but even this is questionable. Even assuming that these determined states do stick to the predicted outcomes, the partial results are not satisfactory for either party. There are enough battleground states still entrenched with undecideds and split votes. However, the battleground states will also be "decided" on Tuesday. What may not be decided on Tuesday is who won the election. One man may have the majority of electoral votes but the other, along with outside organizations, is sure to launch lawsuits aplenty in an attempt to claim, or reclaim, the presidency. Regardless of who will win the election, I predict that the win will not come easily and that the victor will not come out of it a popular president-elect with the entire nation.

Based on two websites, www.electoral-vote.com and www.slate.com, there are still many states still unable to be predicted. The first website, www.electoral-vote.com, has ten states in this category: six barely toward Kerry (PA, MI, MN, IA, NM, and FL), two entirely split (NH and NV), and two barely toward Bush (HI and VA). Slate.com has seven states categorized as "iffy", five for Kerry (NH, OH, WI, MN, and HI), and two for Bush (FL and IA). If all of these states are truly too close to call, and all other states fall the way they are supposed to, the current standings are: Bush 209, Kerry 186 with a total of 12 states amounting to 143 electoral votes unable to be determined.

I will address the states by my predicted winner, starting with the incumbent, Bush. I predict Bush taking victories in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia. Florida, which the websites are split on, will go to Bush by a very close margin, thanks significantly to having a brother who happens to also be the popular governor of the state. New Mexico, Nevada, and Virginia are all predicted to go to Bush on Slate.com, and have been leaning that way for much of the elections, Virginia having gone to Republicans since at least the seventies. I predict Kerry taking victory in the other eight states, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Iowa revitalized the Kerry campaign in the primaries and I think will choose him again, though this time it will not be as much of a shock. Iowa, along with its fellow regional states Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio, has a large contingent of blue-collar workers, which should result in a large democratic turnout and a Kerry victory. Pennsylvania, I think, will also go to Kerry, for both the reason of other Great Lakes states, and the similarities between eastern Pennsylvania and its Democratic neighbor, New Jersey. This is especially true since eastern Pennsylvania is similar South Jersey, which is the more Democratic region of the state. New Hampshire borders Kerry’s home state, and the southern portion of the state is essentially a part of the Boston metropolitan area, making Kerry a fairly hometown candidate. I think that Hawaii will go back to the way it had been for the majority of the race and support Kerry.

With those states falling as I have predicted, Kerry would have 279 electoral votes and Bush would have 259. Though 10 electoral votes may seem like a fairly substantial lead, it actually sets up possibility for disaster. If only one of Hawaii, New Hampshire, or Iowa is a wrong prediction by me, the election is still safe for Kerry. A switch in Minnesota or Wisconsin, more likely in Minnesota, would result in a tie. Switching Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Michigan would result in a Bush reelection. Therefore, a predicted Kerry election is very tenuous. Even if on Wednesday morning it appears to have occurred, it may not stand.

Either side has the potential to launch a legal attack on the other in order to secure victory, and I believe that they will. I do not know what the attack will be over as any state could turn out to be this years Florida. The most feared result is a slim Kerry victory partially attributed to a change in Colorado policy on giving electoral votes, where they may begin to give electoral votes proportional to percent of the vote. However, I do not think that Colorado’s Amendment 36 will succeed, and therefore this will be a non-issue. If it does come under attack, I believe that if the attack is on the constitutionality of the retroactive behavior in the Amendment, it will be overturned and result in a Bush victory.

Through all of this, I am predicting a Kerry victory in the electoral college, followed by Bush lawsuits which will not succeed. Also, I think that Bush may win the popular vote and yet lose the election, which would be fittingly ironic. Kerry's candidacy was almost declared dead a few times throughout this election, and I think that the fact that it is still alive will pull through to victory, just as the Packers pulled through against the Redskins. The Redskins are also supposed to be a barometer for the election, and therefore Kerry should win the election just as I am predicting.

Green Bay 28 - Washington 14

Supposedly this means Kerry will win the election. to quote a recent article (http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/weird/story/1774448p-9625249c.html): "Since the Redskins became the Redskins in 1933, the result of the team's final home game before the presidential election has correctly predicted the White House winner. If the Redskins win, the incumbent party wins. If they lose, the incumbent party is ousted." Well today Green Bay helped out John Kerry as much as any athletic event can help a presidential candidate. However, if this is also an indication of upcoming political events, the Redskins were almost winning 21-20 with little time left. They scored a touchdown which was taken back by a penalty, eventually resulting in 0 points and enough time for another Green Bay touchdown. Does this mean Bush will be "winning" according to networks and will actually lose, or that he will be winning but have the election turned over by the "officials" (aka judges), handing the election to Kerry???

Networks

In this article from TIME http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/25/election.night.tm/index.html , they claim that the networks are trying hard to get the results of the election right, even if that means not first. That would be nice to believe, however I can't see a network that has the possibility to claim victory, though tenuously, avoiding it. They want ratings, and ratings won't disappear if people think they might be wrong, people want to know who might be winning.

Teresa

Teresa Heinz Kerry, as I have noticed and now read in a CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/campaign.kerry.teresa.reut/index.html), is not exactly a pleasantly confined and cutesy potential first lady. And I actually think that this should have been used more to the Kerry campaign's advantage instead of its detriment. There are a large number of Americans who relate to her, who like Hermes bags, botox, and Jimmy Choo shoes (or at least I assume so on the first and last). She could have been portrayed as a strong women who is capable and willing to help Kerry and to show how much power women can have. The fact that this is not a first marriage is not something that should be criticized, but in a way looked at as being more real. Teresa is definitely very real in the public, she says whats on her mind. She shouldn't be criticized for this, she shouldn't be keeping people from voting for Kerry. She epitomizes in many ways what many people think of women in power, if it weren't for her over-exuberant spending.

Also, as much as I find this interesting as an article- is it that important to be addressing for CNN now? Might they have been able to guide the Kerry campaign on how to use Teresa had this been released earlier?

Interesting Site

An interesting state that my roomate sent me as a link:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Shows map of country, each state colored in with different level of support for different candidates. Scroll over any state and it will show the poll data used to determine this coloring, and when the poll is from. Polls from TODAY show that Florida and Hawaii are tied, and are the only two. Not counting those two states, Kerry leads Bush by 1 electoral vote.

Bush's Box: An analysis of possibilities and a plea for answers

There is a problem with President Bush, one that was somehow being fixed or treated by a protrusion on his back that is shown in pictures from the presidential debates. There are a few theories on what exactly the protrusion is and what exactly its purpose is. There are thoughts that Bush may have a health problem that he is not telling the public about, and that the apparent box and wires are in some way being used to treat or control that problem. The original theory was that the box was a receiver through which Bush was being given signals. Of course, the “box” could always be just an illusion, something manufactured in pictures, or a flaw in the design of his suit. Regardless of the reason for this protrusion, Bush should come clean with the nation and explain this now highly known and fairly controversial mystery.

President Bush is known as being a fairly healthy and athletic person. He is known to have been an athlete during his youth, even if part of his athletic career was as a cheerleader. He is also known to run often know and is thought to be in very good health. However, there are questions surrounding Bush’s potential use of cocaine during his younger days. This could lead to health problems at a later date, such as now. Also there is a condition called atrial fibrillation that apparently runs in his family. This is a form of irregular heartbeat that supposedly increases the risk of stroke. It is even possible, according to one doctor, that Bush already had a stroke, based on the physical appearance of his lips and his tendency towards aphasia-like speech problems. Aphasia is usually caused by strokes. With the combination of these two factors, it would be possible, and actually likely, that Bush would be wearing a defibrillator in order to delay having a possible surgery until after the election. This would also explain the recent photographs that are appearing with bulges, and are not from the debates. Also, President Bush has not submitted a physical to the country, as the other candidates on the Democratic and Republican tickets have.

The original theory about the protrusion is that it was sending signals to Bush to help him the debate. There are many reasons to believe this could be true. Bush has been seen with the bulge in the past, however it is possible he would need the tips of another in any public situation. Also, there are videos showing Bush adjusting something in his ear, the moment in a debate where Bush seems to be speaking to someone other than John Kerry or the moderator, and apparently a second voice now showing up on audio clips of the debate. However, the ear adjustment could have been a nervous twitch, an itch, or something else, the awkward moment was pulled off by Bush claiming the moderator appeared to be signaling for him to end, and the “voice” could be altered audio. Also, the first debate was a disaster for Bush, and if anyone was giving him answers they should be fired. Then again, maybe this is true, and the voice in the ear was fired, which explains a better Bush performance in the second and third debates.

The protrusion could be nothing at all too. There is a real chance that pictures have been doctored in order to make it seem as though Bush is cheating or sick. If that is the case Bush should inform the public of that. Bush needs to come out, maybe not the best choice of words considering Bush’s anti-gay stance, and explain this issue. There has been a denial of a bulletproof vest, but no evidence against the theories of health problems or radio signals. I think that Bush is pretending that this is not an issue, however it definitely is. If Bush cannot function without someone giving him signals, therefore making himself a puppet of an administration running the country through a “popular” figurehead, the country needs to know and be worried. Also, if Bush has a heart condition or recently has had a stroke, the public needs to know. The health condition could easily be disproved by a positive health report, which Bush has not given. It also may not be an election-killer, as he is being treated, though an issue as serious as a potential stroke may be, especially with the vice president having health issues as well. Hopefully this issue will be addressed enough in mainstream media to force people to question Bush, and therefore force Bush to address this very important issue.

see:
http://bushwired.blogspot.com/
http://politicalcommentator.blogspot.com/
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/
http://bushsdefibrillator.blogspot.com/

Too early

According to the Washington Post, Kerry is already looking into picking his cabinet. I agree with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson that Kerry should focus on winning, not picking a cabinet. This is premature and could cause harm to his campaign. Richardson has now said no to a position, and maybe he would have taken in after the election, if Kerry were to be elected. Also, I can't see anyone voting for Kerry based on someone he plans on putting into a high position, however I think that I can see people voting against him because of it. The one good thing coming out of this is his goal of placing women, minorities, and Republicans in the cabinet. I am sure that there will also be white male Democrats (and I see no reason that there should not be), but it is good that he is stating his intent to diversify now, hopefully he will just keep that promise should the election go in his favor.

Absentee/Early Voting

Absentee and Early voting may end up being an evil this election, not the wonderful savior that many think it is. More and more states are allowing absentee voting without any reason. CNN.com has a map with blue for in person, yellow for in the mail, and striped for both, and over half the country was in some type of color. This can only result in problems. There are a few reasons that I believe this. One: absentee ballots that are "forgotten" or "miscounted" in one or more states. Two: people cannot change their mind once they have absentee voted, but with this many people voting in this way- there is no way every voice is heard in the correct way on November 2. Three: It is hiding another problem with the voting system- inefficiency. In an email I received from DukeForKerry I was told to vote early in order to avoid a long line on election day that could possible cause me to not be able to vote. I don't believe this is a problem as I am done with classes at 11 that day, but the fact that there are many people being disenfranchised of their vote is not fixed by allowing for more absentee voting, it is fixed by having more and more efficient polling places. Though I am, in a way, contributing to this as I am un-volunteering to help on election day today (I have a Math Test on November 2)

"Battleground" States

This whole controversy over Battleground states is once again showing a problem with the electoral college. I am not sure that I would want the electoral college gone, but the article at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/showdown/explainer.html shows that states characterized as "swing" "showdown" or "battleground" get an extremely disproportionate amount of attention. Maybe its just that this election is so close, yet in many states so polarized. I just think that it creates a system where only the residents of the states mentioned, shown below, are determining the president. I mean- according to them- it doesn't matter who I vote for because NC isn't on their list [note: neither is my true "home" state- NJ]. Whatever, I would love to say I want to change it, but I am not actually sure that I do. The electoral college may be bad,or it may be good, or maybe those Coloradians have it right.


States Listed as "SHOWDOWN STATES" on website
• Colorado
• Florida
• Iowa
• Maine
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Missouri
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Mexico
• Ohio
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin