John Adams

NM is supposed to be the biggest Libertarian turnout AD. BTW, looks like Badnarik is outperforming Nader.

Actually, to me, that says a lot for Hoeffel. More reason to support him.

Picking and choosing the states is not objective Mr. Rather/Drudge... take your pick of role models Scott. Your boy may well win, but your propaganda machine (blog?) is not an objective reporting machine.

Wisc and NM would be the first states to flip from 2000. That is newsworthy. I heard earlier though that NM has an insane # of absentee ballots- in the hundreds of thousands, and it would be hard to project NM tonight if it was close. Where are all those absentee ballots coming from in NM?!?

Seems to be doing better in PA. But keep posting non-objective things, Mr. Drudge. Some are bound to be true.

Northeastern. I hate Specter.

Bush won Ohio in 2000. Again, no change from 2000 if he wins it. Would be a huge win for Kerry.

Is Blitzer a Buffalo guy? I know a lot of people who love Russert because he's the best. I don't know a Republican or Democrat who hates him.

No. But when you factor in Erie county and a few of the northern counties, the center of the state can't offset the big cities. The big advantages of Pennsyltucky as someone called it, is the large voter turnnout and overwheming Republican support. Hey- maybe Bush will win PA. If he does, he wins. If Kerry does, it's what he needs to stay in the race. (Just called PA for Kerry- who knows- he has a 400K lead) Poof is right. Looks like pork and spend Specter may win again. Give us your money non-Pennsylvanians. Arlen's coming to get your cash.

Solid scorecard here shows the changes from 2000. So far, all the state projections are identical, and the only electoral number differences are due to shifting populations. cnn scorecard Smart of you not to watch. I wish Russert, Blitzer, and a handful of others would start their own network. Those two alone are multiple times better than anyone else talking tonight. And sure I know Russert is a huge Democrat, but he is such a fair journalist.

Specter losing would be a HUGE upset. He was a runaway projected winner.

Then the other lemmings will soon follow. So far, the only people I want to watch cover the election are Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert. Unfortunately, Brokaw keeps making assanine leftist comments that Russert ignores, and Blitzer is on with a panel that includes Larry King (although King was the first person I heard make the point, at 11 pm, that no state has changed from 2000 so far... which is something I'm surprised other networks aren't harping on).

Whatever. He never saw pork he didn't approve. I once attended a dinner for him where he bragged about how much pork he would bring to PA as the senior member of the appropriations committee. Eff You Arlen- that's not what I'm looking for. I hope he loses, and to be honest, even though he's a Democrat, I like Hoeffel.

At 11 pm, all the projected states are identical to 2000. No news yet. If you want to know who your next president is, wait until Thursday at the earliest.

Those projections are nothing more than trying to scoop stories. They called TX for Bush at 1% when the candidates were 4,000 votes apart. I'm sure they'll call California the second the polls close. Why? Because they are confident in the results and refuse to get scooped. I don't think your example is media bias-based. Look at PA- right now, Kerry is ahead by a huge margin with 85% precincts reporting, but it still shows undecided. I'd be shocked if Bush wins PA now... but they are holding on to a projection for reasons unknown to me.

The Arkansas between Philly and Pittsburgh doesn't make up for the sheer mass of voters in those cities. Specter on the ropes too- bad timing for him to run during such a heated presidential race. Wouldn't be shocked to see Hoeffel win at this point.

A rare agreement from me. Bush is a big government, big-spending, deficit ignoring Socialist. He's only a Republican because that's who endorsed him. If he was a Democrat, the Republicans would skewer him for his fiscal irresponsibility. I would LOVE nothing more than a Bush loss, and for the Conservatives to demand something better from their reps. Do you think McCain/Guiliani would lose to John friggin' Kerry? You guys can do better than Bush.

You mean where he reported something that turned out to be wrong? How about when he said Hillary Clinton was going to be indicted? Or one of his at least 5 we found WMD stories. Or his report that Sidney Blumenthal beat his wife. Come on, man. Even he admits those stories were wrong. All that stuff Rush feeds you is eating your brain away. Drudge is no more reliable than the Enquirer. He gets some stories right, but he doesn't care if they are wrong.

I'm just asking you to wait until another, actual reliable source, runs the story. Drudge runs EVERY story without regard to truth. I'm not saying there's no voter fraud in Philly or anywhere, but Drudge is not a good source of info. And yes, I'd take a FoxNews story - that network is slanted, but they have some integrity.

I've been voting since 1989, and like many here, I vote in every election. Still, I certainly take it a little for granted sometimes. I'm taking night classes right now and have a lab professor who became an American citizen this past year. (He's from India, which is a democracy, although a kind of dysfunctional one.) He came over to me during lab last week and started asking me a million questions about the election today. "How do the machines work?" "Can people see me vote?" "Is it safe for children?" "Will they announce results as it progresses?" "When will we know who wins? Who reports the official results" Just a sampling of the questions. He was SO excited to vote. He said he's going to stay up all night to see all the results and is wheeling a TV into lab tonight so we can watch any results live. His enthusiasm really made me proud to be an American, and appreciate my vote a little more.

Stop quoting Drudge like it's a reliable source. As I said in the other thread... heavy turnout in Philly. Took me an hour to vote. Many people who vote in the city are still in line and not yet at work (these are not the type of people who are just looking for an excuse to miss work). I DO care who wins, but I'd be thrilled if 2000 taught people a lesson abotu the value of their votes. It would really be great. The poll-workers in my district said they had never seen it like this at 7 AM (I agree, but I've voted in my district for only 5 years).

HUGE lines here in PA as well. I voted at 7:10 AM and waited an hour to cast the ballot. This is in a Philly suburb. Several people (who aren't just using it as an excuse to miss work), have been in line for several hours in Philly precincts. It's a beautiful day here, driving up turnout in Philly. I'm sure Spector will win though I didn't vote for him. And I think Kerry will win PA, although I didn't vote for him either.

One of the reasons for growth under Clinton had to be the gridlock. The Republicans have grown the govt at unprecedented levels, even if you take homeland security out of the numbers (the article removing the homeland security numbers is at CATO). It's really shocking what the Republicans are truly up to. How can any person who wants smaller government still vote for Republicans?

Thank God. That's at least one reason to hope for a Kerry win. The gov't will have a harder time spending, growing, and expanding than it has under the Republicans.

I only wish OBL would tell me who to vote for. Once I know who he wants, I will follow his wish.