Ok.. Let's Look At This Statistically - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

archer2371 · 11-03-2004, 05:57 AM

I'm gonna take you guys through each battleground state that has not been called, source being the Fox News statistics, I'm not using their spin, because there is a spin for the Republicans, that's why I watch it. However, I'm using the raw numbers here.

Wisconsin:
99% Precincts Reporting
Senator John F. Kerry-1,480,256 (50%)
President George W. Bush-1,466, 963 (49%)

I give this one to the Senator, that's a 14,000 vote lead, while possible, it is not probable that the President can make that up, my electoral count now stands at 269-252.

Iowa:
100% Precincts Reporting
President George W. Bush-741,325 (50%)
Senator John F. Kerry-725,700 (49%)

No bones about this one, this one goes to the President, no precincts out there left for the Senator to grab. My electoral count now stands at 276-252.

New Mexico:
99% Precincts Reporting
President George W. Bush-325,311 (50%)
Senator John F. Kerry-323,691 (49%)

Same situation, but flipped, as in Wisconsin, possible, but not probable that the Senator can make up that difference, especially in a small state such as New Mexico where even a 3,000 vote margin is substansial. My count now stands at 281-252.

Nevada:
100% Precincts Reporting
President George W. Bush-388,953 (51%)
Senator John F. Kerry-368,458 (48%)

Same as New Mexico, but with a larger margin of victory for the President, small state, 20,000 vote margin of victory, almost a landslide in contemporary standards. My electoral count stands at 286-252.

Okay, now we're going to look at the statistics in Ohio and we'll review the scenarios.

Ohio:
100% Precincts Reporting
President George W. Bush-2,794,346 (51%)
Senator John F. Kerry-2,658,125 (49%)

That's a difference of 136,221 votes there. Let's for a moment assume that there are 250,000 provisional votes out there that need to be counted. I've been hashing out the numbers here for a few minutes and the magic number for the Senator is going to be 194,000-196,000 provisional votes that would give him the win, that's if there is 250K provisionals out there. This situation, while possible, is not very probable. If someone wants to figure out that exact number the Senator needs to win, go ahead, I'm running on not much sleep so even the rounded numbers was a bit of a stretch for my brain. The official count of provisional votes currently with 78 of 88 counties reporting is 135,000 votes, then you have to consider that some of those are not going to be legitimate, it happens, not because of some vast right wing conspiracy that is trying to suppress the vote, but because not many people are informed of how to register to vote or how to figure out whether they're eligible or not. This is why I am comfortable in declaring the President the winner of Ohio.

The Dreaded Popular Vote, From CNN:
President George W. Bush-58,283,800 (51%)
Senator John F. Kerry-54,758,357 (48%)

Keep in mind, even the vaunted President Bill Clinton didn't get a majority of the American people's votes, he received a plurality, but not the majority. This is the first President since his dad to get the majority of the votes, and the President's number of votes is greater than even Ronald Reagan's greatest number of votes. To me, this throws out all of the theories that previously worked, most notably "120 Million voters means a decisive Democrat victory." Come to find out this ain't true, just goes to show you that nothing that has happened in the past guarantees a future outcome.

pan6467 · 11-03-2004, 07:13 AM

I am more than willing to say Bush won. He has the popular vote and hey that's life. I am very pissed over the whole Ohio situation though. I think Ohio allowed itself and even set itself up to be this year's Florida so that if the popular vote were closer and the election were closer Ohio would have been Bush's but so scandal ridden that we'd have 4 more years of....."But did he really win?"

As it turned out he did..... But I cannot forgive my state leaders for doing this to Ohio.

Phantom Power · 11-03-2004, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archer2371

Keep in mind, even the vaunted President Bill Clinton didn't get a majority of the American people's votes, he received a plurality, but not the majority. This is the first President since his dad to get the majority of the votes, and the President's margin is greater than even Ronald Reagan's over Mondale. To me, this throws out all of the theories that previously worked, most notably "120 Million voters means a decisive Democrat victory." Come to find out this ain't true, just goes to show you that nothing that has happened in the past guarantees a future outcome.

This is what I have been thinking about all day...

But I've been more impressed by how all the media, how EVERYONE it seemed was so pro-Democrat, so pro-Kerry, so anti-Bush. I mean, every bit of news you watched talked about Kerry's winning the debates, or Kerry's ahead on the opinion polls or Kerry this and that... and yet, everyone was wrong... I admit, I've been watching the Boston news here on the east coast, and obviously it's pretty hardcore Democrat country here, but even in Canada all we've been hearing and reading about is how everyone hates Bush and wants Kerry in. I assumed this sentiment was fairly strong across the US.

I guess the media had me brainwashed. Fully expecting a Kerry win. But I have to admit I'm happy with the outcome ( assuming it is a Bush win )

gcbrowni · 11-03-2004, 07:34 AM

The media is located in the Northeast and the West coast, the areas that went Democrat. The US is very large, and the values represented by the Northeast and West coast don't really reflect the values the rest of the country holds. I don't think the rest of the world, or even most Americans, realize how large the US is. There is alot more to the country than NY and California.

Redlemon · 11-03-2004, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archer2371

Keep in mind, even the vaunted President Bill Clinton didn't get a majority of the American people's votes, he received a plurality, but not the majority. This is the first President since his dad to get the majority of the votes, and the President's number of votes is greater than even Ronald Reagan's greatest number of votes.

I don't have any numbers at hand, but I suspect that the 'majority' portion is simply because a much smaller percentage went to 3rd parties than before. Also, the 'greatest number of votes' is probably just because a lot of people voted; Bush probably also had the 'greatest number of votes against a winner'.

If anyone has access to these numbers, and can confirm or contradict me, that would be cool.

archer2371 · 11-03-2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redlemon

I don't have any numbers at hand, but I suspect that the 'majority' portion is simply because a much smaller percentage went to 3rd parties than before. Also, the 'greatest number of votes' is probably just because a lot of people voted; Bush probably also had the 'greatest number of votes against a winner'.

If anyone has access to these numbers, and can confirm or contradict me, that would be cool.

You are correct, but I was mainly pointing that statistic out as totally debunking the theory of large turnout=Democrat Victory. I apologize if my post ain't that coherent, I'm running on fumes here.

Redlemon · 11-03-2004, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archer2371

You are correct, but I was mainly pointing that statistic out as totally debunking the theory of large turnout=Democrat Victory. I apologize if my post ain't that coherent, I'm running on fumes here.

No apologies necessary. I had heard this number stated elsewhere, and had the thoughts I posted in the back of my mind before reading your post. I fear that GWB will assume that that 'majority' percentage should be considered a 'mandate', and proceed accordingly.

smooth · 11-03-2004, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phantom Power

[/U]

This is what I have been thinking about all day...

But I've been more impressed by how all the media, how EVERYONE it seemed was so pro-Democrat, so pro-Kerry, so anti-Bush. I mean, every bit of news you watched talked about Kerry's winning the debates, or Kerry's ahead on the opinion polls or Kerry this and that... and yet, everyone was wrong... I admit, I've been watching the Boston news here on the east coast, and obviously it's pretty hardcore Democrat country here, but even in Canada all we've been hearing and reading about is how everyone hates Bush and wants Kerry in. I assumed this sentiment was fairly strong across the US.

I guess the media had me brainwashed. Fully expecting a Kerry win. But I have to admit I'm happy with the outcome ( assuming it is a Bush win )

I don't know why you interpreted what you saw the way you did. All the broadcasts I saw relied on 'soft' voters who viewed the debates to draw their conclusions that Kerry had won, not their internal support. Even Fox joined the other networks in ceding the point kerry won the debates.

What they did say was that kerry was leading on a lot of issues. But they never predicted a win. They always said that Bush was leading on terrorism, and if that was the overriding issues, then Bush would win. If it was about the economy, then kerry would win. And that's exactly what we see in the exit polls, except for the voters claiming that moral issues were their numero uno factor.

In regards to the original post's description of Ohio: You are only counting provisional ballots, but you left absentee ballots from the tally.

11-03-2004, 05:57 AM	#1 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Ok.. Let's Look At This Statistically I'm gonna take you guys through each battleground state that has not been called, source being the Fox News statistics, I'm not using their spin, because there is a spin for the Republicans, that's why I watch it. However, I'm using the raw numbers here. Wisconsin: 99% Precincts Reporting Senator John F. Kerry-1,480,256 (50%) President George W. Bush-1,466, 963 (49%) I give this one to the Senator, that's a 14,000 vote lead, while possible, it is not probable that the President can make that up, my electoral count now stands at 269-252. Iowa: 100% Precincts Reporting President George W. Bush-741,325 (50%) Senator John F. Kerry-725,700 (49%) No bones about this one, this one goes to the President, no precincts out there left for the Senator to grab. My electoral count now stands at 276-252. New Mexico: 99% Precincts Reporting President George W. Bush-325,311 (50%) Senator John F. Kerry-323,691 (49%) Same situation, but flipped, as in Wisconsin, possible, but not probable that the Senator can make up that difference, especially in a small state such as New Mexico where even a 3,000 vote margin is substansial. My count now stands at 281-252. Nevada: 100% Precincts Reporting President George W. Bush-388,953 (51%) Senator John F. Kerry-368,458 (48%) Same as New Mexico, but with a larger margin of victory for the President, small state, 20,000 vote margin of victory, almost a landslide in contemporary standards. My electoral count stands at 286-252. Okay, now we're going to look at the statistics in Ohio and we'll review the scenarios. Ohio: 100% Precincts Reporting President George W. Bush-2,794,346 (51%) Senator John F. Kerry-2,658,125 (49%) That's a difference of 136,221 votes there. Let's for a moment assume that there are 250,000 provisional votes out there that need to be counted. I've been hashing out the numbers here for a few minutes and the magic number for the Senator is going to be 194,000-196,000 provisional votes that would give him the win, that's if there is 250K provisionals out there. This situation, while possible, is not very probable. If someone wants to figure out that exact number the Senator needs to win, go ahead, I'm running on not much sleep so even the rounded numbers was a bit of a stretch for my brain. The official count of provisional votes currently with 78 of 88 counties reporting is 135,000 votes, then you have to consider that some of those are not going to be legitimate, it happens, not because of some vast right wing conspiracy that is trying to suppress the vote, but because not many people are informed of how to register to vote or how to figure out whether they're eligible or not. This is why I am comfortable in declaring the President the winner of Ohio. The Dreaded Popular Vote, From CNN: President George W. Bush-58,283,800 (51%) Senator John F. Kerry-54,758,357 (48%) Keep in mind, even the vaunted President Bill Clinton didn't get a majority of the American people's votes, he received a plurality, but not the majority. This is the first President since his dad to get the majority of the votes, and the President's number of votes is greater than even Ronald Reagan's greatest number of votes. To me, this throws out all of the theories that previously worked, most notably "120 Million voters means a decisive Democrat victory." Come to find out this ain't true, just goes to show you that nothing that has happened in the past guarantees a future outcome. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif." Last edited by archer2371; 11-03-2004 at 08:22 AM.. Reason: Forgot to cite CNN as a source, and a correction on a statistic

11-03-2004, 07:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I am more than willing to say Bush won. He has the popular vote and hey that's life. I am very pissed over the whole Ohio situation though. I think Ohio allowed itself and even set itself up to be this year's Florida so that if the popular vote were closer and the election were closer Ohio would have been Bush's but so scandal ridden that we'd have 4 more years of....."But did he really win?" As it turned out he did..... But I cannot forgive my state leaders for doing this to Ohio. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-03-2004, 07:34 AM	#4 (permalink)
gcbrowni Tilted Location: Indianapolis	The media is located in the Northeast and the West coast, the areas that went Democrat. The US is very large, and the values represented by the Northeast and West coast don't really reflect the values the rest of the country holds. I don't think the rest of the world, or even most Americans, realize how large the US is. There is alot more to the country than NY and California. __________________ From the day of his birth Gilgamesh was called by name.