[extropy-chat] Moveon.org

[Brett Paatsch]

David Lubkin wrote:

> I've been rather disappointed with Badnarik, even by
> comparison with some of the dubious characters the LP
> has nominated in other years. The last presidential nominee
>of any party that I genuinely would want to have had in office
> was Goldwater, although I appreciate Ron Paul and was very 
> impressed by Nancy Lord.
..

> Alas, I live in a small battleground state. If I chose to volunteer
> for the Bush or Kerry campaigns, my personal effort could 
> conceivably decide the election. OTOH, the way things are
> going, Bush will win in a national  landslide.

As Spike pointed out there is a lot of red on the map at 
http://electoral-vote.com/  and its been trending towards redder.

Still if you add the strong and weak Kerry electoral votes you get 
173 and the strong and weak Bush give 237.  270 being the magic
number.  There are a lot more barely Bushes 90 than barely Kerries
38 so the host of the site was arguing shifts to Kerry should be
easier than further shifts to Bush. 

Looks to me like the real battleground states are Florida (27) and
Pennsylvannia (21).  New Hampshire's (4) have appeared to be
weak Kerry for some time. 

You can (obviously ;-) opt out of this if you want David, but I'm
curious as to how someone like you interesting in politics and
living in a battleground state sees the "relevative" pros and cons of
the two electable candidates.

Care to to do a summary as you see it?  Sitting in Australia I can
see why US libertarians might well and rationally prefer a lower
taxing Bush than Kerry domestically, is that the main differentiator?

Regards,
Brett Paatsch