Your Official 2004 Election Day Thread

[WVRed]

Figured it might be a good idea to get this started a day early, and keep the board less cluttered.

Election Websites(polls and the like)

Electoral-vote.com(electoral map of projected polls)

RealClear Politics=good website for all the new polls, including national and battleground states

Electoral Vote Calculator

Fire away...

[GIK]

Well, if we're doing this a day early...here's Slate's election scorecard:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108751/

Currently Bush is up 286-252

[WVRed]

thanks for the sticky.

[GIK]

Slate's poll is now tied at 269:

Analysis Nov. 1, 2:45 p.m. ET: You'd think that since polls are published daily, analysis based on them would last more than a couple of hours. But you'd be wrong. Last night we got a new poll and moved Florida to Kerry. This morning we got another new poll and moved it back to Bush. Guess what? We've got a third poll now, and—oh, what's the point of explaining any more. The balance of evidence in Florida is back on Kerry's side. But fear not, Republicans. Another new poll has arrived in Wisconsin, tilting the balance of evidence in that state by the teensy-weensiest margin to Bush. The result, appropriately, is a tie, which sends the election to the House, where Bush wins. And if you don't like that projection, just wait an hour.

:MandJ:

[WVRed]

Some of the newest battleground polls out look good for Bush in Ohio, and suprisingly Pennsylvania.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bus...erry_sbys.html

Fox News and Zogby have Bush up by 3 and 4 respectively in Ohio, but CNN/USA Today/Gallup(one poll) has Kerry up by 4. A UC poll has Bush up by 0.9 as well.

Pennsylvania has three new polls, with CNN/USA/Gallop having Bush up by 4, Zogby with Kerry up by 5, and Quinnipac with a tie.

Fox News has Bush up by 3 in Wisconsin, while Zogby has Kerry by 7. CNN/USA/Gallop had Bush up by 8 there yesterday.

More contradicting by Zogby and Fox News with Iowa, where Kerry is up by 6 and Bush is up by 4 respectively.

Minnesota is looking like a lock for Kerry, with Zogby and CNN/USA/Gallop having Kerry up by 2 and 8 respectively.

Michigans a lock for Kerry

Zogby is tied in New Mexico

Colorado is leaning Bush according to Zogby yesterday.

[jmcclain19]

Any polls that have the difference in the margin of error aren't worth their salt, this late in the game, considering no one can guess what the turnout will be.

[Rojo]

considering no one can guess what the turnout will be.

I'm going to guess the turnout will be very high -- and I don't think I'm going out on a limb on this one.

This is why Kerry wins.

[WVRed]

Originally Posted by Rojo

I'm going to guess the turnout will be very high -- and I don't think I'm going out on a limb on this one.

This is why Kerry wins.

One of the projections I read had the turnout being the same(or less) than 2000. If thats the case, better luck in 2008.

Im thinking Kerry is relying on the college vote(18-23) for voter turnout. There is really no legitimate way you can predict how that vote will turn out.

[jmcclain19]

I've heard that the voter turnout would be high for the last several elections.

I don't see how this is any different. Expect all kinds of coverage showing massive lines and people "geared up" to vote then in a few weeks when the numbers are final it'll be about the same as it has been for the last 20 or so years.

[letsgojunior]

I heard on the news the other day in NC that over 1,000,000 people had voted early, and that in years past it had been just 300,000. I was barely listening to the television, but I'm pretty sure that those are the numbers I heard. Regardless, I do remember hearing that it was much higher than it had been in years past.

With the fiasco of the last election, as well as all the numerous voter drives I've seen, I'd be quite shocked if the turnout in this year's election wasn't much, much higher than it has been in past elections.

[jmcclain19]

Originally Posted by letsgojunior

I heard on the news the other day in NC that over 1,000,000 people had voted early, and that in years past it had been just 300,000. I was barely listening to the television, but I'm pretty sure that those are the numbers I heard. Regardless, I do remember hearing that it was much higher than it had been in years past.

With the fiasco of the last election, as well as all the numerous voter drives I've seen, I'd be quite shocked if the turnout in this year's election wasn't much, much higher than it has been in past elections.

That just follows the trend of early voting.

Over the last decade, early voting has been made more accessable nationwide and has grown exponentially because of it.



I wouldn't put too much stock in it. These are the same stories that are recycled from the week before the 2000 election day.

[MWM]

It's all about Ohio and Florida.

I also think turnout will wind up extremely high. That's a good thing (insert hypocrite joke below).

[paintmered]

I have a question - if on the off chance a ruling has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court while Rhenquist is out on medical leave, does the court wait until he is healthy enough to hear the case? Do they continue with the remaining Justices? Is there a temporary judge from a lower court that sits in his absense? Who takes the role of Chief Justice?

[jmcclain19]

Originally Posted by paintmered

I have a question - if on the off chance a ruling has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court while Rhenquist is out on medical leave, does the court wait until he is healthy enough to hear the case? Do they continue with the remaining Justices? Is there a temporary judge from a lower court that sits in his absense? Who takes the role of Chief Justice?

The Senior Most Justice, in this case Justice Stevens, presides in the event the Chief is gone. That's what happened today.

I would bet that Rehnquist, being the long time GOP activist before his judicial career, would crawl thru broken glass to make sure he was there to hear oral arguments for a Bush v. Kerry case.

As long as he's there during Oral, he can vote on the case, as he can obviously just take the case work home and work on it with his staff from there.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by paintmered

I have a question - if on the off chance a ruling has to go to the U.S. Supreme Court while Rhenquist is out on medical leave, does the court wait until he is healthy enough to hear the case? Do they continue with the remaining Justices? Is there a temporary judge from a lower court that sits in his absense? Who takes the role of Chief Justice?

If one justice is unavailable or recuses himself/herself, the remaining justices decide the matter. No temporary judge from a lower court can serve. I can recall that the Supreme Court's ruling during the Watergate scandal that Nixon had to turn over the tapes was an 8-0 decision. I believe that Rehnquist had recused himself from that case.
Of course, if only eight justices are deciding the matter, that would give us the possibility of a 4-4 tie.