269-269 tie likely?

[ringmastery]

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

If we win New Hampshire and West Virginia and everything else stays the same, it's a 269-269 tie.

[CMT]

1. then we better hope we win back the house

since they would then decide who is elected president. Wouldn't it be something if Bush is first selected by a closely divided Supreme Court and then selected again by a closely divided house of representatives?

[tritsofme]

4. Lame duck session controlled by Republicans would vote.

nt

[goobergunch]

5. Wrong (n/t)

[tritsofme]

7. Are you sure? When would the tiebreaker vote be?

nt

[goobergunch]

9. The counting of the electoral vote is on January 6

Congress convenes at January 3 - three days before hand. The tiebreaker vote would probably occur right after the counting of the electoral vote.

[tritsofme]

11. I guess that makes sense.

But its still highly unlikely we will win back the House in this election, the Senate maybe, but not the House, especially if the redistricting stands in Texas.

[Walt Starr]

14. That doesn't matter, Repukes win anyway

Even if we control the House, Bush would win.

Read your constitution if you don't know what I'm talking about. The delegation from each state has a single vote for a total of 50 votes.

Bush would win in the House by a landslide unless there are tons of surprising House race results, including a few where the winner was not even on the ballots since usually there are House races where the incumbent is running unopposed.

[goobergunch]

19. Here's my analysis

AL - R
AK - R
AZ - R
AR - D
CA - D
CO - ?
CT - R
DE - R
FL - R
GA - R
HI - D
ID - R
IL - R
IN - R
IA - R
KS - R
KY - R
LA - R
ME - D
MD - D
MA - D
MI - R
MN - ?
MS - ?
MO - R
MT - R
NE - R
NV - ?
NH - ?
NJ - D
NM - ?
NY - D
NC - ?
ND - ?
OH - R
OK - R
OR - D
PA - R
RI - D
SC - R
SD - ?
TN - ?
TX - ?
UT - R
VT - D
VA - R
WA - D
WV - D
WI - ?
WY - R

For a grand total of Bush winning, 24-13. 26 would be needed for a majority, however I find it likely that he would acheive that.

[Yupster]

24. You want a laugh?

The House of Reprsentatives vote in case of no majority takes place by STATE. Each state gets one vote, so if Wyoming's one congresscritter votes for Bush and so does Alaska's, and California's congresscritters vote for Dean by a 37-16 vote, then Bush would have two votes and Dean would have one.

See the Seventh Amendment for an explanation.

Wouldn't it be something if Bush won without a majority in the popular vote the first time, and then he won with a minority of congresscritters voting for him the second time.

Irony can be so ironic.

Oops - see about five other people were quicker on their constitution than I was.

[Frodo]

13. I think he got it right.

Don't they vote by state? I'm pretty sure the Republicans control more state delegations than we do.

Interestingly enough, Texas would ahve gone for Gore in 2000 by that standard. Next year in a tie? Will depend on the redistricting court case.

[goobergunch]

21. They do vote by state

but it would be the 109th Congress, not the current 108th.

[Frodo]

23. True. But I don't think we have much chance of picking up

enough states by then to make a difference. Especially if the TX lines pass judicial muster.


On edit - I just saw your #19. Belay my last.

[La_Serpiente]

2. That is what I was thinking

That is the worst case scenario. That is why I believe that Ohio is more important than Florida this election. And the President of DIEBOLD said that he would deliver Ohio for the President. :shiver:

[La_Serpiente]

3. delete

delete

[phillybri]

6. We can and will win Ohio....

Guaranteed...

[ringmastery]

8. How can we win without Ohio and Florida?

New Hampshire, West Virginia and maybe fight like crazy for Nevada or Arizona?

[phillybri]

15. Arizona is a strong possibility as well...

Good (D) governor could definitely help us along in the campaign...

[ringmastery]

18. We still have to hold

Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

They all went to Al Gore by less than 2%

[GainesT1958]

10. Doubt that will be the case...

We've got a shot in Nevada and even in Arizona--both went for Dub in 2000. One of those, and probably WVa. this time, would do it. Let's just hope Diebold won't have the voting-booth presence in lots of states Al Gore carried in 2000! :scared:

If it WERE to go to the House, each state gets ONE vote, decided by the majority of their delegation. So every state with a Repub congressional majority would go for Dub, possibly skewing the result there. The upshot would be that Dub & Co. would claim an even larger "madate" than they actually got--if, unlike last time, they would actually get a popular mandate at all.

As I've said before...the most frightening sentence in the English language today is:

"George W. Bush with a popular mandate." :scared:

B-)

[ringmastery]

12. republicans hold more state delgations right?

Actually, isn't the Texas delegation democratic?

That would be kind of funny. Texas voting for Dean.

[goobergunch]

16. Not after re-redistricting it won't be....

:puke: all over Craddick's best clothing-

[Hawkeye-X]

17. Dean and his 50 state strategy

will pay off. It'll go all blue for Dean in 2004.

* will get NOTHING. ZILCH, ZIP, NIX, NAUGHT, ETC!

As a result, both House and Senate will ride Dean's coattails to a Democratic majority and will remain there for 200+ years to come. Republicans will become extinct.

Hawkeye-X

[burning bush]

20. well, your optimistic, if nothing else!

Can't say that I wouldn't love to see a landslide for any Dem, especially, Dean, but I just don't think it'll go that way.

:)

[Zero Gravitas]

22. Well we won Florida too

but they managed to stop a full vote count.

IF things stay the same as last time (and that would mean millions of intelligent, informed people ignoring the utter disaster the * Administration has been) and they COUNT ALL THE FRIGGIN VOTES we'll win. Again. Only this time our guy might actually get sworn in.