Electoral College Breakdown, Installment Eleven (The Battlegrounds)

various

[Dales]

Since I began the rundown of the states, California had a new poll released.

---

California

Electoral Votes: 55

2000 Result

Gore 53%

Bush 42%

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat
8/16/03	Field	NA	RV	4%	Bush	42%	Unnamed Democrat	47%
8/16/03	Public Policy Institute	NA	LV	3%	Bush	40%	Unnamed Democrat	45%
1/3/04	Public Policy Institute	Link	LV	3%	Bush	45%	Unnamed Democrat	45%
1/13/04	Field	NA	RV	3.4%	Bush	46%	Unnamed Democrat	47%
1/18/04	Rasmussen	NA	LV	4%	Bush	41%	Unnamed Democrat	46%
2/13/04	Knowledge Networks	Link	RV	4.1%	Bush	38%	Kerry	42%
2/16/04	Public Policy Institute	Link	1,103 LV	3%	Bush	37%	Kerry	54%

Punditry: With this poll, I am downgrading California to Strong for the Democrats.

---

Summary Table
	Bush					Democrat
	Safe	Strong	Lean	Slight	Tossup	Slight	Lean	Strong	Safe
	ND (3)	CO (9)	GA (15)	NV (5)	OR (7)	NM (5)	WI (10)	NY (31)	VT (3)
	AL (9)	SC (8)	NC (15)	FL (27)	WV (5)	ME (4)	-	DE (3)	MA (12)
	MT (3)	KY (8)	MO (11)	NJ (15)	-	MI (17)	-	MD (10)	DC (3)
	WY (3)	KS (6)	VA (13)	NH (4)	-	PA (21)	-	WA (11)	RI (4)
	UT (5)	MS (6)	OH (20)	-	-	IA (7)	-	CT (7)	HI (4)
	ID (4)	SD (3)	IN (11)	-	-	MN (10)	-	IL (21)	-
	AK (3)	LA (9)	AZ (10)	-	-	-	-	CA (55)	-
	NE (5)	-	AR (6)	-	-	-	-	-	-
	OK (7)	-	TN (11)	-	-	-	-	-	-
	TX (34)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Designation Total:	76	49	112	51	12	64	10	138	26
Candidate Total:	237			127			174

Please, no comments on the colors regarding who is red and who is blue. The map was made for me by SC Swamp Fox using a tool online, and they chose the colors for him. I'll eventually be doing my own map. Also, please note that although I call some states as having a slight advantage one way or another, it would be a mistake to count them for either candidate. They are well within the margin of error, and should be considered anyone's game.

---

The battleground states will be those which make up the toss-ups and those with a slight advantage for either side. Over time as new polls come out, different states may move into or out of the battleground. The movement of states into, and out of, the battleground will be an important metric to trace, as it will indicate which side is successfully bringing the fight to the other at that point. If, for example, Ohio and Missouri become battleground states, then that is a sign that Kerry has been making progress while Bush has been regressing.

As of this moment, with the Democrat nomination almost sealed up, the general lay of the land favors the President, with 234 of the required 270 electoral votes leaning his way (or more). Kerry is going to have to continue to ride the wave of favorable coverage he is getting for longer to pull into an equitable position.

It is clear that at this point, President Bush has a much better standing as the incumbent than Gore had as the pseudo-incumbent in 2000. At this point in 2000, Gore was significantly behind in the national polls, while most polls have Bush and Kerry within the margin of error with each other nationwide. At the time of my first ECB (Electoral College Breakdown) in 2000, Gore had about 40 more electoral votes in his columns than Kerry has now. On the other hand, Bush is running about 9 electoral votes behind where he was. That first ECB was done about 6 weeks later, so it would only make sense that more electoral votes would be leaning one way or another by then.

Last year, the initial states designated as battleground states were Florida, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Iowa, Maine, Georgia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Washington. Florida, West Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine repeat as initial battleground states this year. Arkansas, Georgia, and North Carolina have all moved towards Bush as leaners as the south has solidified. Wisconsin (lean) and Washington (strong) have moved towards the Democrats. New battleground states initially are Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania.

---

Florida

In the first ECB of 2000, Florida was listed as a battleground with a slight advantage to Gore. This time around, it is starting with a slight advantage for Bush. Florida has 6 Democrat Representatives and 18 Republicans. Both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by the Republicans. Republicans control most of the executive branch. However, both Senate seats are held by Democrats. As of Dec. 1, 2003, the state registration was 41.9% Democrat and 38.6% Republican. Dales' Prediction: Florida will remain close, but not as close as 2000, and will remain in the Bush column.

West Virginia

In the first ECB of 2000, West Virginia was rated as a battleground state with a slight advantage to Bush. This time around, it is starting as a complete tossup. Two of West Virginia's three Representatives are Democrats. Democrats control everything else: both Senate seats, both chambers of the state legislature, and the top executive branch offices. It is easy to see why, when 60% of the registered voters are Democrats and just 29% Republican. Dales' Prediction: Bush holds West Virginia

Iowa

Iowa rated a slight advantage to Bush in the first ECB of 2000. This time, it rates a slight advantage to the Democrats. Other positions in Iowa are mixed. The Republicans hold 4 of the 5 House seats, and the Senate seats are split. The Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature, but the Democrats hold all major executive offices except for Auditor. Republicans hold a 32% to 29% advantage in registration. Dales' Prediction: While I've been told that Iowans love incumbents, they do not like war. I see the Democrats holding Iowa.

New Hampshire

Both last time and this time, New Hampshire started as a slight advantage for Bush. When looking at the other offices, it is hard to understand just why this is not more firmly in his control. The Republicans hold all the House seats, both Senate seats, control both chambers of the state legislature, and hold all major executive branch offices, while having a 37%-26% registration advantage. The consensus on these threads that I have seen is that Bush will have difficulty securing New Hampshire. I don't buy it for a second. Bush wins..

Maine

Maine is currently a slight advantage for Democrats, which is a change from ECB 2000 where it started as a slight Bush advantage. While the Republicans hold both Senate seats, everything else is in the hands of the Democrats, who enjoy a 31%-29% registration lead. Dales' Prediction: Bush plucks off one of the electoral votes here and the Democrats hold the rest.

Nevada

Nevada was leaning Bush in the first 2000 ECB, and this year rates a slight advantage for Bush. Legislatively, the state is split. Two of the three Representatives are Republicans. The two Senate seats are split. The Democrats control the state Assembly while the Republicans control the state Senate. The Republicans hold most executive branch offices. The registration race is close, with Republicans holding a one point advantage (41%-40%). Dales' Prediction: Nevada will hold.

New Jersey

If New Jersey remains tight enough to stay in the battleground, it is a case of back to the future. ECB2000 started with it leaning Gore's way. The Democrats have 7 of 13 Representatives and both Senate seats, control both chambers of the state legislature, hold all of the important executive offices, and have a 25%-19% advantage in voter registration. Dales' Prediction: It would take a perfect storm for New Jersey to go for Bush. There will not be one.

Oregon

In early 2000, Oregon was polling strongly for Bush. The left coast influence eventually took hold and turned it into a very even state, and it starts this year as a tossup. Democrats hold 4 out of 5 Representative seats, while the Senate seats are divided, just as control of the state legislative chambers is split. The Democrats hold most of the executive branch positions. Democrats hold a 3% lead in registration, 39%-36%. Dales' Prediction: as another state with an antiwar bias, the Democrats will win here.

Michigan

Michigan has gone from leaning Bush to having a slight advantage for the Democrats. Republicans have 9 of 15 Representatives, Democrats hold both Senate seats, while Republicans hold both houses of the state legislature. The state executive is split; Democrats hold the Governor and Lt. Governor positions while Republicans have the Secretary of State and Attorney General slots. Dales' Prediction: I would love to see Bush carry Michigan, but I do not see it happening.

Minnesota

The slight advantage for the Democrats is a step up from the leaning Gore position at the start of ECB 2000. Minnesota's legislative seats are split right down the middle. Half of the Representatives, half of the Senate seats, and one of the state legislative chambers are held by each party. Most of the important executive branch offices are held by Republicans with the exception of Attorney General. Dales' Prediction: Minnesota is changing rapidly, and Bush will capture the state.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania started as leaning Bush last time, but has drifted to where it has a slight advantage for the Democrats. Republicans hold a 12-7 advantage in the numbers of Representatives, and hold both Senate seats. They also hold both chambers of the state legislature. The Democrats hold the major executive branch positions except for Attorney General, and have a significant registration advantage (48%-42%). Dales' Prediction: I fear the Rendell machine. I think the Democrats hold Pennsylvania

Add up all of the predictions and factor them into the already designated states, and my early prediction is for Bush to be re-elected with 289 electoral votes.

---

The battleground states last election were mainly in the south. Bush won them, and as such won the election. This time, the battleground states are predominantly in the midwest and the east coast. Kerry will need to control these states and make some advances into others in order to win. He may look to Florida, but Bob Graham's pitiful run at the Democrat nomination may have destroyed his chance of being on the ticket. Besides, his appeal would not extend to other battleground states in any meaningful manner. It is unlikely that Kerry will look to New England for a running mate either; look for his selection to come from the midwest. The most natural fit for him would be Evan Bayh of Indiana. He could make Indiana, a state Kerry will otherwise have little chance in, competitive, would probably move Ohio into play, and would have appeal to most of the other battleground states. His position on abortion issues might even allow Kerry to appear more moderate than he is. On the downside, it is not clear that the NOW gang would permit Bayh to be on the ticket, and a ticket with two sitting Senators on it would have an awful long vote trail on which to prey. Another option for Kerry would be Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. And should Kerry make peace with the Clintons, then we could very well see Ed Rendell. Rendell would play well in much of the rust belt, and his executive branch experience would work well as a balance to the Senatorial Kerry (who's executive experience was long ago, and under Mike Dukakis- hardly a selling point).

Given the current battleground, it is likely that Kerry will continue the populist, class warfare rhetoric adopted by Gore in 2000; it fits this battleground much more than it fit the 2000 one.

As for what Bush can do to firm up this region, the best he can do is to hope the economy gives him another selling point. A legitimate plan to counter outsourcing issues would be a big step in the right direction, especially in defusing the statement an aide made that outsourcing is good for the economy in the long term. Portions of this battleground have histories of being relatively antiwar, and as such the more Iraq calms down and the longer that goes between American casualties, the more likely it will be that the Bush message will resonate in the New England states, in Minnesota, in Nevada, and in Oregon. Despite the wishes of the Bush campaign for this election to be fought on national security, the battleground looks to be a referrendum on the economy and on Iraq.

Historical election data are located at Dave Leip's invaluable website.

Installment One
Installment Two
Installment Three
Installment Four
Installment Five
Installment Six
Installment Seven
Installment Eight
Installment Nine
Installment Ten

[SC Swamp Fox]

All I did was put Dales' numbers into an on-line electoral map and them captured the graphic.

Dales has done all the grunt work.

I agree, this will be a useful tool.

[CasearianDaoist]

Your analysis is more in line with my perceptions. I just do not see Bsuh taking Minnesota. These Latte Liberals and the old line "FDR Democrats" will kill him.

[Plutarch]

As for what Bush can do to firm up this region [the Midwest/Northeast]..."

For Kerry, you go over a list of V.P. candidates. There is no reason that Bush could not find a new job for Cheney, and substitute a V.P. candidate who would actually help the ticket generally, or capture a battleground state in particular. Any suggestions or analysis?

(I've been beating the drum for Santorum).

[dpwiener]

Demonstrates the political wisdom--for Kerry--to pick Rendell as running mate.

Rendell is a plausible choice. But if Kerry really, really wants to be President (and he really, really, really, really does), I think he's going to have to roll the dice on the Vice-Presidency. Other people have already suggested John McCain, and I think it would be a brilliant choice for Kerry.

Naming McCain as his VP would add more "Vietnam hero" credentials and create the image of a serious foreign policy team which could be counted on to pursue the War On Terror. It would also be a "Fusion ticket" which could appeal to Independents and moderate Republicans, and would reassure many swing voters after Kerry's heavy left-wing trip through the primaries. The liberal media, which has always loved McCain, would completely swoon over this ticket.

What's the downside for Kerry? Obviously some Democrats would choke at the prospect of putting a pro-war Republican on the ticket. But for the far-left this is an "Anybody But Bush" crusade, and they'll recognize and ultimately accept the political calculus involved. Yes, Ralph Nader will pick up some anti-war votes, but that will be heavily outweighed by all the swing votes that Kerry/McCain will put into play.

Would McCain do it? Why wouldn't he? He has no love for Bush, and this would be his only remaining chance to become President. (Remember, any Vice-President has good chance of eventually ascending to the Presidency. Five of the eleven post-WWII Presidents were former Vice-Presidents.)

[Dales]

It's not going to happen. Cheney will be the nominee.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"at this moment in the campaign the main domestic issue may well be the chronic loss of manufacturing jobs. And if Kerry chooses Rendell as running mate, that will be campaign issue # 1; and it will put these states won by Bush in 2000 in play: Ohio, WV, Kentucky, Tennessee, perhaps others. Plus it would solidify Penn, Mich, NJ, Missouri in the Dem camp, leaving them to spend money in (for them!) less secure states. Of all the potential VPs out there, Rendell is the one who offers the most benefit to a Kerry campaign."

---

I agree that Kerry's best line of attack may be the loss of manufacturing jobs, but couldn't disagree with you more regarding how helpful Rendell would be. I don't think he would help Kerry in any of the states you mentioned except PA and NJ (he would also help in Delaware, which you didn't mention). Rendell is very popular in the Philly metro area, but lost the rest of the state to the GOP gubernatorial candidate and is a DLC-type, in favor of free trade and such. Plus, he had a pretty bad relationship with unions in Philly when he was mayor. Just as Rendell wouldn't help Kerry much in Western PA, he wouldn't help him at all in Ohio or Michigan and much less in Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee or Kentucky. If Kerry wants to be competitive in those states, he's better off picking Dick Gephardt, although, in all honesty, nothing Kerry does will allow him to carry KY or TN (not that he needs to if he can win the other states you mentioned).

[Remole]

You make a lot of great points, and clearly you know more about the politics on the ground in those battleground states. So thanks much for your insights. But it still seems that, of all the options, Rendell offers the most upside for Kerry. He has the personality, the executive record, the friends in the media, the common-sense approach to politics and getting things done that any Senator, and especially Kerry, will need for ballast. I must admit that I wasn't aware that he had alienated so many union types. If even Rendell can't bring in the blue-collar types, then Kerry is worse off than I thought.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I am not from MN, and you are, so it's presumptuous for me to tell you about the voters of your state, but I'll do it anyhow. : )

I think you're correct that voters in Hennepin County are generally social liberals and economic conservatives, like voters in most close-in suburbs outside the South. But the exurban territory that has been growing like crazy during the past 10-15 years, such as Dakota, Scott, Carver, Wright, Sherburne, Benton, Isanti, Chisago, Anoka and Washington counties (the "Ventura Belt") is not like Hennepin County at all. Most voters there are young, with conservative cultural values, pro-life and pro-gun, and who don't have much use for government. Ventura won big there not because he was a libertarian on social issues, but in spite of the fact that he was a libertarian on social issues (although being pro-gun certainly didn't hurt him there)---if exurban voters in MN were such social liberals, there is no way that ardent pro-lifers Coleman and Pawlenty would have won such large margins there. And St. Cloud is very pro-life, as are the German and Norwegian areas in the NW and even the economically liberal Iron Range. I think Kerry will be killed on abortion and gun control outside of urban areas and close-in suburbs in Hennepin and Ramsey counties (and maybe some close-in suburbs in northern Dakota, southern Anoka and western Washington counties), and that Bush has an excellent shot at becoming the first Republican presidential candidate since Nixon in 1972 to carry MN.

[Clintonfatigued]

Very impressive work. I think that this year, Ohio will be ground zero, not Florida. It's historical record that no Republican has been elected President without carrying Ohio, and it has suffered a lot of job losses lately.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"But it still seems that, of all the options, Rendell offers the most upside for Kerry. He has the personality, the executive record, the friends in the media, the common-sense approach to politics and getting things done that any Senator, and especially Kerry, will need for ballast."

---

You are certainly correct that Rendell has the personality to be a great asset to any campaign. When he was DNC chairman, and later when he appeared on TV, it was difficult for me to dislike him. But he's been governor for less than two years, and being mayor of a city (even one 3 times larger than Vermont : ) is not the type of executive experience one looks for in a president. If Kerry wants executive experience, there's always Governor Vilsack of Iowa (although I don't know how good he'd be in front of the cameras---it's doubtful he'd be as good as Rendell) or Governor Warner of Virginia (who was elected a year before Rendell was and who did very well in that election with the rural and blue-collar voters Kerry needs to attract). But if I were him, I'd go with Gephardt.

If Rendell gets reelected in 2006 (which is likely, since PA governors usually get reelected once and then cough up power to the other party), he will be a fine presidential or VP contender for the Dems in 2008 (assuming Bush wins reelection). Rendell for president and a Southern or border-state Protestant for VP (Rendell is Jewish, and would probably need a Baptist or other Protestant as VP in order to have a chance in West Virginia, Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas and some other states) would be a strong ticket for the RATs. But I don't think it's Rendell's time yet.

[irish guard]

The media....for obvious reasons...largely ignores this fact, with no Joe Lieberman to interest the Jewish vote...how well will the Democrats fare in a largely Republican state?

[Dales]

Thanks.

We'll see how everything goes. Last year the system worked pretty well.

[Dales]

McCain would not do it. He would hate being second fiddle, and as much as we whine about McCain, he is still a lot closer to us than he is to Kerry. His lifetime ACU rating is 84, and Kerry's is 5.

Even if you go with McCain's ratings just over the last 5 years, he is much closer in votes to the 'perfect conservative' than he is to Kerry.

Remember, McCain has already been out campaigning for Bush and against the Democrats. The Democrats love to think that he is one of them, and he does play to them at times, and many conservatives look at him like he is one of them because of it. But he is not one of them, never was, and never will be.

[SC Swamp Fox]

Considering all of the "Bush bashing" the dwarfs and their minions have been doing, Bush is in surprisingly good shape.

I fixed the colors and did a little shading.

[Dales]

Even better! Thanks!

[Dales]

And you made Bush blue. Yes!

[JLS]

Thanks again for all the good work.

I wonder if in your historical comments it would be right to also mention Anderson cutting into Carter's vote in 1980 when analyzing trends in state voting. Although nominally a Republican, his RINO Independent candidacy seemingly hurt Carter much more than Reagan, maybe tipping some states and certainly making the margin in some state different than it would have been without him.

Since you mention the effect of Perot in 1992 and 1996, consistency might be served to mention Anderson in 1980 unless my memory is faulty and that third party try did not affect outcomes or margins.

[ItsMyVoteDammit]

This is an excellent analysis. Please add me to your Ping list. Thanks.

[JLS]

Latest poll on on PA shows it tightening. In case you missed it someone posted it tonight:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1084982/posts

[Lancey Howard]

Great work on this stuff.
I appreciate your efforts.

Regards,
LH