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

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

I can't speak for you, but my 401K and other investments have done extremely well in the past year.

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.

[newgeezer]

I wonder who the good Lord has in mind for us this time. It's obviously not the cake walk for Dubya some would like to think it's going to be.

[biblewonk]

I'm reminded of that blog that you disregarded. I still think W is much stronger than 2,7,or 9 will ever leave you to believe.

[BaBaStooey]

My 2004 Prediction: Bush with 307 EV

[BlueNgold]

Michigan is winnable.
I think if Sec Ridge comes out strong PA is winnable.
Oregon can turn into a battleground if the EC looks close. If it's not close the Pres won't put a lot of time or money into it.

[BaBaStooey]

The problem with Michigan (I'm speaking as a lifelong resident) is that the margin of victory for the Democrat in Wayne County (Detroit) is usually larger than the margin of victory statewide.

Meaning, if enough Dems turn out for the Democrat in Detroit, they win the whole state in most statewide races. The only time Republicans have won statewide is when the Democrat does not get enough support from Wayne County.

It's ridiculous, but thats the way its been here for as long as I can remember.

[SC Swamp Fox]

New Michigan poll.

I haven't had time to look at the details, but the headline is that Bush's support slips.

[Dales]

Ahem. You were sayin?

[Barlowmaker]

Bush Up by 2 (46-44) in Minnesota

[Coop]

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.

[Dales]

Well, I didn't get all the states right back in February, but I came close. Both by the initial designations (which included NJ for Bush) and by my predictions (which did not, but did have Bush winning Minnesota) I had Bush getting 288 electoral votes.

I think, if I can pat my back for a moment, that I did pretty good on my February read of the election.

[Coop]

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.

[commish]

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.

[Dales]

It was the same in 2000. In 2000, the only state that was in any of the safe, strong or lean designations in early spring that ended up flipping was Oregon, and that may have been a bad poll; in 2000 I used the most recent poll rather than looking at the last few, so Oregon may not have gotten such a powerful designation.

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. :-)

[Dales]

I am very disappointed in the cheeseheads. I thought we had 'em.

[commish]

Of course, how to tell in spring if it is a year like 1992 or 1980 is pretty hard

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.

[Coop]

I am very disappointed in the cheeseheads.

I think in legal votes we did.

[Torie]

I did pretty good on my February read of the election

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.