<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Presidential Totals Posted Sunday, Nov. 30</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3885</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-584563</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-584563</guid>
		<description>Thank you, Eric.  No, there are still more votes coming, especially from west coast states.  Oregon and Washington always take a long time to count all the votes because Oregon uses all-mail ballots, and almost all counties in Washington do as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Eric.  No, there are still more votes coming, especially from west coast states.  Oregon and Washington always take a long time to count all the votes because Oregon uses all-mail ballots, and almost all counties in Washington do as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Dondero</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-584534</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Dondero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-584534</guid>
		<description>Richard, I did get your latest issue asking me to subscribe, and I do plan to do so, despite our often extreme differences.  

Thanks

One last question.  So, is the 520,368 number final for Barr?  Is that it?  Is that the number for the history books?  

I remember back in 1988 with the Ron Paul campaign, we were never able to get a final, final number, we just guessed it at 435,000.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard, I did get your latest issue asking me to subscribe, and I do plan to do so, despite our often extreme differences.  </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>One last question.  So, is the 520,368 number final for Barr?  Is that it?  Is that the number for the history books?  </p>
<p>I remember back in 1988 with the Ron Paul campaign, we were never able to get a final, final number, we just guessed it at 435,000.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Yager</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-583959</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Yager</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:45:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-583959</guid>
		<description>#  Charles Says:
November 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

&quot;McKinneyâ€™s numbers have hardly moved. What a pathetic outcome for the Green Party, after a 95% decline due to the disaster of David Cobbâ€™s illegitimate bid â€” a recovery of barely 1% of that by a six-term Congresswoman is shocking.&quot;

Nader didn&#039;t want the Green nomination in 2004 but Cobb did.  There&#039;s nothing illegitimate about Cobb moving into the vacuum left by Nader.

In 2004, Nader&#039;s vote totals declined by 84% compared with those of 2000.  Both Cobb and Nader suffered from the &quot;Anybody But Bush&quot; mentality and the Democrats&#039; attacks on the Greens as spoilers.

In 2008, Nader improved from 2004, but he still ended up 75% below his 2000 vote totals.  It was another bad year for third parties in general.

&quot;Fusionism is going to be the death of the Green Party. Good riddance to any supposedly independent party which tries to prop up either wing of the bankrupt two-party scam.&quot;

I see very few Greens advocating fusion, although that accusation is routinely made.  We were the only opposition to the Democrats in the Congressional elections in Arkansas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#  Charles Says:<br />
November 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm</p>
<p>&#8220;McKinneyâ€™s numbers have hardly moved. What a pathetic outcome for the Green Party, after a 95% decline due to the disaster of David Cobbâ€™s illegitimate bid â€” a recovery of barely 1% of that by a six-term Congresswoman is shocking.&#8221;</p>
<p>Nader didn&#8217;t want the Green nomination in 2004 but Cobb did.  There&#8217;s nothing illegitimate about Cobb moving into the vacuum left by Nader.</p>
<p>In 2004, Nader&#8217;s vote totals declined by 84% compared with those of 2000.  Both Cobb and Nader suffered from the &#8220;Anybody But Bush&#8221; mentality and the Democrats&#8217; attacks on the Greens as spoilers.</p>
<p>In 2008, Nader improved from 2004, but he still ended up 75% below his 2000 vote totals.  It was another bad year for third parties in general.</p>
<p>&#8220;Fusionism is going to be the death of the Green Party. Good riddance to any supposedly independent party which tries to prop up either wing of the bankrupt two-party scam.&#8221;</p>
<p>I see very few Greens advocating fusion, although that accusation is routinely made.  We were the only opposition to the Democrats in the Congressional elections in Arkansas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-583699</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:42:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-583699</guid>
		<description>I wrote in Alan Keyes here in Kentucky, on the ballot in three other states, and my vote wasn&#039;t even listed in the county (Callaway). However, on Election Night one of the tv stations reported 220 write-in votes for Keyes in Missouri, a state where Keyes was not even listed as a write-in candidate!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wrote in Alan Keyes here in Kentucky, on the ballot in three other states, and my vote wasn&#8217;t even listed in the county (Callaway). However, on Election Night one of the tv stations reported 220 write-in votes for Keyes in Missouri, a state where Keyes was not even listed as a write-in candidate!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Estiffics</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-583685</link>
		<dc:creator>Estiffics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-583685</guid>
		<description>ÐºÐ²Ð°Ñ€Ð¸Ñ‚Ñ€Ñƒ Ð½Ð° ÑÑƒÑ‚ÐºÐ¸, Ñ‡Ð°ÑÑ‹ Ñ‚Ð¾ Ð²Ð°Ð¼ ÑÑŽÐ´Ð° ÐºÐ²Ð°Ñ€Ð¸Ñ‚Ñ€Ñ‹ 
Ð›ÑŽÐºÑ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð¾ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐ¼Ð¾Ñ‚Ñ€Ð¸Ñ‚Ðµ Ð²Ñ‹ ÐµÑ‰Ðµ Ð½Ðµ Ð²Ð¸Ð´ÐµÐ»Ð¸, 
Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ð½Ñ‹Ð¹ ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð»ÑŒ Ð¯Ð¿Ð¾Ð½ÑÐºÐ¸, ÐšÐ¸Ñ‚Ð°Ð¹ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹, Ð¸.Ñ‚.Ð´ 
Ð’ÑÐµ ÑÑŽÐ´Ð° http://www.kvartira-vrn.ru</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ÐºÐ²Ð°Ñ€Ð¸Ñ‚Ñ€Ñƒ Ð½Ð° ÑÑƒÑ‚ÐºÐ¸, Ñ‡Ð°ÑÑ‹ Ñ‚Ð¾ Ð²Ð°Ð¼ ÑÑŽÐ´Ð° ÐºÐ²Ð°Ñ€Ð¸Ñ‚Ñ€Ñ‹<br />
Ð›ÑŽÐºÑ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾ÑÑ‚Ð¾ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÐ¼Ð¾Ñ‚Ñ€Ð¸Ñ‚Ðµ Ð²Ñ‹ ÐµÑ‰Ðµ Ð½Ðµ Ð²Ð¸Ð´ÐµÐ»Ð¸,<br />
Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ð½Ñ‹Ð¹ ÑÑ‚Ð¸Ð»ÑŒ Ð¯Ð¿Ð¾Ð½ÑÐºÐ¸, ÐšÐ¸Ñ‚Ð°Ð¹ÑÐºÐ¸Ð¹, Ð¸.Ñ‚.Ð´<br />
Ð’ÑÐµ ÑÑŽÐ´Ð° <a href="http://www.kvartira-vrn.ru" rel="nofollow">http://www.kvartira-vrn.ru</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-583662</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-583662</guid>
		<description>yes, they do include Guam.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yes, they do include Guam.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Dondero</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-583657</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Dondero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-583657</guid>
		<description>Do these numbers reflect the few hundred votes Bob Barr received in the Territory of Guam?  He was the only 3rd party candidate on the Guam ballot.  He shouldn&#039;t be denied those votes.

(I admit, I have a special personal interest in this, since I&#039;m the one who urged Sean Haugh to send in the filing paperwork for Barr&#039;s Guam ballot access.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do these numbers reflect the few hundred votes Bob Barr received in the Territory of Guam?  He was the only 3rd party candidate on the Guam ballot.  He shouldn&#8217;t be denied those votes.</p>
<p>(I admit, I have a special personal interest in this, since I&#8217;m the one who urged Sean Haugh to send in the filing paperwork for Barr&#8217;s Guam ballot access.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trent Hill</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-583614</link>
		<dc:creator>Trent Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:06:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-583614</guid>
		<description>&quot;Trent Hill, why do you think Baldwinâ€™s count will exceed 200,000? Write-in votes in California?&quot;

CA and PA&#039;s write-ins alone will probably add up to somewhere around 7-8k. Add in the other write-in votes that are trickling in, and i&#039;m sure it&#039;ll happen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Trent Hill, why do you think Baldwinâ€™s count will exceed 200,000? Write-in votes in California?&#8221;</p>
<p>CA and PA&#8217;s write-ins alone will probably add up to somewhere around 7-8k. Add in the other write-in votes that are trickling in, and i&#8217;m sure it&#8217;ll happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-583518</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-583518</guid>
		<description>my analysis of all results, eveyone surpasssed expectations despite what you might have heard or thought, see my updated article on results:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5411.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my analysis of all results, eveyone surpasssed expectations despite what you might have heard or thought, see my updated article on results:<br />
<a href="http://www.nolanchart.com/article5411.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nolanchart.com/article5411.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Lussenheide</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/30/new-presidential-totals-posted-sunday-nov-30/comment-page-1/#comment-583468</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Lussenheide</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=4374#comment-583468</guid>
		<description>All:
 
Write In Votes in California are trickling in, and several counties do not list write ins on their county websites by individual candidate, only &quot;collectively&quot;. The SOS of the whole state will document the vote on December 13th statewide, collating these into final statewide totals. 
 
However, in my latest survey done today, we DO have 4 counties, with a good representation from across the state of demographics et al. that are showing the write in totals for individuals. 
 
These are Lassen , San Bernardino, Orange, and Yolo Counties. 
 
In these counties, Chuck Baldwin  received a total 594 write in votes. These counties represent 14.12% of the total votes cast in California. Thus if we do the math, ( multiplying the total write in votes by 7.082 so as to total 100%) , The projected  write in total will be...
 
4207  
 
This would place California in the Top 20 States for the CP. 

Pennsylvania, also a populous state has yet to come. Adding in PA, CA and a couple of other states will bring Baldwin very close to the 200k achievement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All:</p>
<p>Write In Votes in California are trickling in, and several counties do not list write ins on their county websites by individual candidate, only &#8220;collectively&#8221;. The SOS of the whole state will document the vote on December 13th statewide, collating these into final statewide totals. </p>
<p>However, in my latest survey done today, we DO have 4 counties, with a good representation from across the state of demographics et al. that are showing the write in totals for individuals. </p>
<p>These are Lassen , San Bernardino, Orange, and Yolo Counties. </p>
<p>In these counties, Chuck Baldwin  received a total 594 write in votes. These counties represent 14.12% of the total votes cast in California. Thus if we do the math, ( multiplying the total write in votes by 7.082 so as to total 100%) , The projected  write in total will be&#8230;</p>
<p>4207  </p>
<p>This would place California in the Top 20 States for the CP. </p>
<p>Pennsylvania, also a populous state has yet to come. Adding in PA, CA and a couple of other states will bring Baldwin very close to the 200k achievement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

