For two months now I've been following numerous electoral prediction sites. I recently scrapped several sites due to obvious bias in one direction or the other. The five I have continued to view almost daily don't seem to change for every whimsical poll. They are more cautious, or at least up-front, in how their maps are updated. For your reference and viewing pleasure, here are the sites I have used as a framework: http://www.presidentelect.org (only updated every two weeks), www.race2004.net, http://2.004k.com, http://electionprojection.com/elections2004.html, and http://www.tripias.com/state.

[The parenthetical information following each state indicates how many of the 5 aforementioned sites have the President (B) and Senator (K) currently winning, with a statistical tie (T) indicated in some cases.]

There are 8 states that are currently IN PLAY, defined as states that are often flipping between candidates or consistently within the polling margin of error. They are Arkansas (B-5, K-0), Iowa (B-4, K-1), Maine (K-4, B-0, T-1), Minnesota (K-4, B-0, T-1), Nevada (B-5, K-0), New Hampshire (K-2, B-1, T-2), Ohio (B-4, K-1), and Pennsylvania (B-2, K-2, T-2).

There are also 6 states that the polls indicate might be IN REACH of the candidates with good strong debates and a final push. This IN REACH designation is given due to a steady closing of the gap over a period of weeks or a lack of stability in polling results, indicating a possible close finish. They are New Jersey (K-4, B-0, T-1), New Mexico (K-3, B-2), Maryland (K-5, B-0), Michigan (K-4. B-0, T-1), Oregon (K-5, B-0), and Washington (K-4, B-0, T-1). Florida (B-5, K-0) should be added as well, due to the polarizing nature of the 2000 election and the unknown impact of the hurricanes during this election season.

Using the majority winner of the polls on these 5 sites, excluding New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, which are currently statistical toss-ups, George Bush is leading 291-222, with 25 electoral votes still available. Subtract up to 4 votes if Colorado amendment 36 passes (What a travesty that will be!) and the president's lead is reduced to 287-226. One vote could be gained back in Maine's district 2, even if Maine goes to Kerry overall.

Where does that leave Bush campaign strategists? They must focus first and foremost on Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Florida, combined with either Ohio or Pennsylvania, will almost certainly mean a Bush win. Florida, with both, should signify a substantial electoral victory.

In addition, the campaign should spend 1-2 days each in the following states, fortifying its base and creating additional pressure points on Kerry's time and resources: Missouri-Iowa, Maine-New Hampshire-New Jersey, Nevada-Washington-Oregon, and Colorado-New Mexico. While in Colorado, it is essential that the campaign try to dissuade voter from relinquishing the value of their state's electoral votes, by encouraging a "no" vote on Amendment 36.

Creating more pressure - in even a couple of the states only recently thought to be in play - might well collapse the Kerry strategy and give President Bush a 350-400 electoral vote mandate. Here's hoping….

Dwight wrote that it would be a "travesty" if Colorado voters were to allow the state's electoral votes to be split between the two candidates. I couldn't disagree more. I hope that Colorado will pass amendment 36 and that all states will pass similar laws in the coming years so that all voters' votes will be more equally weighted across the entire country. As it is now there is very little reason for many people to bother voting in states that are heavily favored by a particular candidate. I'd actually like to see the Electoral College system scrapped entirely, but seeing as that is less likely to happen, amendments such as Colorado's is a step in the right direction which would lead to a much more representative and functioning democracy. What could Dwight be afraid of? That the voters' true wishes would be accurately represented at the polls? What could be better for a nation aspiring to be a true democracy?

Dwight wrote that he hopes to see a collapse in the Kerry campaign and a landslide electoral vote mandate for Mr. Bush. What a sad day for America and the world that would be! After watching Mr. Bush's buffoonery during the first debate, it's tough to imagine what message such a mandate would send to the rest of the world about the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the American people.

Welcome Earl...

Just curious...are you pro states rights on all issues or just this one?

Do you not believe that a federal election should be run using guidelines established by the federal government?

Or should the states be allowed to have a monkey decide for them if they so desire? I know...over the top but you get my meaning...

Is all this wishful thinking more a result of how Dems and libs still cannot accept the 2000 outcome and are reacting in a kneejerk fashion by advocating a complete overhaul in the election process.

It's funny that back at that time there were a lot of my lib friends who were telling the rest of us that we should be prepared to accept an outcome in which George W. Bush might get the majority vote and still lose out in the electoral college...funny how that turned out, huh?

Many might agree that the electoral process should be scrutinized to make sure it is working, but the 2000 election is not the one we should focus on when doing so...

The process worked, plain and simple...Gore won the popular vote...so what? Bush won more states...neither has anything to do with electing a president in this country...you don't change the rules in the middle of the "game" just to suit someone's twisted sense of fairness...

Do you suppose Gore would have turned down the job had things been reversed? I doubt it...

We need to get over that already and move on...ironic how the 527 who has been most active in running ads against the president goes by that very name...wish they would...

Steve

Earl, Earl, Earl. PolSci 101, buddy. America is not a democracy. Wasn't designed to be, never has been never will be. Do you even know what we really are Earl? HINT: It starts with the letter r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c. And it's worked for over 200 years. (After one party completely dominates in Congress for 40 years, then loses it for 4, they are ready to throw it all away for power again. That's desparate.

Steve,

I think you are wrong about Earl!

Seems to me he's not for State's rights at all. I read him as suggesting that a popular vote is the fairest way to have an election. Seems that if the electoral college has to remain, he'd just as soon see all the states use their perogative to make the state's electoral votes as democratic as possible.

Seems to me that Colorado will be making their vote as a state insignificant. And I don't see how the voters are going to feel their vote is meaningful when the most they will likely accomplish is to provide their candidate with a one-vote edge in the electoral college. Seems to me future elections would be worth staying home for.

Am I wrong? If so, somebody help me understand! If not, then what is the world coming to?!?

Legal challenges of all sort are in store for the good people of Colorado should Amendment 36 pass...

The numbers of strange bedfellows would be endless...

As far as I can tell the ones who are the driving force behind the amendment are Dems who are still smarting from the 2000 outcome...

They had better be careful what they hope for as it could potentially, under some scenarios, cost Kerry the 2004 election...

It also essentially renders Colorado insignificant to candidates for president in the future...no one will likely allocate too many resources to a state where basically only one electoral vote is at stake...

Dems like to believe, and rightly so, that had 36 been in place during the 2000 election, Al Gore would now be president...

(Side note: I don't know too many people, Dem or Repub, who long for that after the way he has conducted himself during the last several years - bitter, angry and irrelevant are not a good combination when try to convince people of ones statesmanlike qualities)

...they want to make the outcome retroactive (legal challenge pending to be sure) to the 2004 election which would impact this years election...if they really feel like they can make in retroactive then why not make it retroactive to 2000 and give Al the glad news that he has been president all along...he just hasn't gotten to live in the big house or ride on the big plane...LOL...

Amendment 36 might be a good notion to consider on a nationwide scale, but the proponents of it should be prepared for a lot of time in court to defend it's merits...

Steve