SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 it is now his final play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 it is now his final play. 98377[/snapback] Kerry can win without Ohio. Bush can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 winner takes all...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Kerry can win without Ohio. Bush can't. 98383[/snapback] Isn't it the other way around? without Ohio he can only get 264 in EC votes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Isn't it the other way around? 98387[/snapback] That's what Russert just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Isn't it the other way around? 98387[/snapback] No. If Kerry can take NM, AK, and NV, he doesn't need Ohio. Bush, on the other hand, would have to take Wisconsin, Michigan, or Minnesota if he loses Ohio. And I think (but I'm not sure) that NH is largely irrelevent to the above two equations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 No. If Kerry can take NM, AK, and NV, he doesn't need Ohio. Bush, on the other hand, would have to take Wisconsin, Michigan, or Minnesota if he loses Ohio. And I think (but I'm not sure) that NH is largely irrelevent to the above two equations. 98395[/snapback] hmmm interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 As the vote comes in...82% Bush maintains a 120,000 vote lead...odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 No. If Kerry can take NM, AK, and NV, he doesn't need Ohio. Bush, on the other hand, would have to take Wisconsin, Michigan, or Minnesota if he loses Ohio. And I think (but I'm not sure) that NH is largely irrelevent to the above two equations. 98395[/snapback] Kerry couldn't win Alaska unless he ran against Osama Bin Laden. Alaska will be called within minutes of the polls closing for Mr. Bush. The margin will be well over 20, could be higher than 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Isn't it the other way around? 98387[/snapback] In reality, they both need it. Kerry can NOT win without Ohio, since Alaska is not in play (and NM seems safe). Bush probably can not overcome the loss of Ohio considering the current vote counts in MI, MN, WI and IA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 please stop with the mental masturbation.... I'm talking REAL possibilities - not Alaska flipping to blue. Ohio is that last chance for Kerry to flip red votes to blue votes and get 270. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 As the vote comes in...82% Bush maintains a 120,000 vote lead...odd. 98397[/snapback] Look at the numbers from Cuyahoga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 For whatever it is worth, Foxnews is projecting that Bush will win the state of Ohio, putting him at 266 EVs. If it holds, he has won re-election as Alaska will make it a 269-269 tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts