Posted on 02/23/2004 3:38:08 AM PST by Dales
Edited on 02/23/2004 5:31:38 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
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
As have mine.
It's not so much how the economy performs overall that matters in key states like West Virginia, or even right here in Oregon. Bush needs blue collar dems - in droves - to stave off the tidal wave of criticism (even if 99% bs) sure to be mounted by DNC/CNN/ABC. The patriotism factor should put him over the top, but if the ecomony doesn't happen to put some out-of-work loggers in decent paying jobs, they may reconsider. Economy is positive, I agree. But generating jobs in the key states is the iffy part. I think the battleground is the midwest - Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio. Oregon is similar to these midwestern states - basically rural and conservative, but with one major urban area that tends to pull the state liberal.
I haven't had time to look at the details, but the headline is that Bush's support slips.
Ahem. You were sayin?
What you talkin' 'bout, Dude? I've been with you regarding NJ for months. McGreevey's problems and the Quinnipiac poll in NY the other day only reinforced the possibility, IMHO.
I think, if I can pat my back for a moment, that I did pretty good on my February read of the election.
I don't know about way back when, but going into Tuesday I expected Dubya would lose NH, gain NM, WI and maybe IA. (And I REALLY wanted to include MN in the gains, but couldn't bring myself to do it.) I did call +4 for the Senate, though.
What is amazing to me is how basically static this election actually ended up. For all the twists and turns and "revelations' and "debate wins" and "october surprises" -- if you look at the polls from way back in the spring, and the results Tuesday, there was in reality very little change overall.
And while I did not 'do' this officially in 1996, going off of memory suggests it was pretty static too.
I am thinking the last time an election markedly changed was 1992, and before that 1980. The rest from 1976 on, I think, were predictable in spring.
Of course, how to tell in spring if it is a year like 1992 or 1980 is pretty hard. :-)
I am very disappointed in the cheeseheads. I thought we had 'em.
I think this may get put to the test in 2008. My gut tells me Hillary! will have an overwhelming lead in the spring.
THe truly Red states will be even redder, and the truly blue states will be Navy blue. But I think almost all of the "swing" states will have a decidely blue hue to them.
2008 will be a tough campaign, and the GOP better be ready to bring the fight to HILLARY! in the summer and fall.
I think in legal votes we did.
You did indeed, and throughout the election, and did a great job on your website. Kudos. You did have your little NJ thingie, but I along with you thought Minnesota would go Bush. The trend up there to the Pubbies is on hold for the moment. I was also surprised Iowa went to Bush (assuming it does, but the MSM keeps holding off for some reason in calling it), what with the Iraq war. I guess social issues in Iowa are trumping their dovish instincts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.