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

[AntiGuv]

You are free to choose whatever point you deem fit, of course. Otherwise, since you claim that your previous statements where not intended to be taken as representative of anything outside your personal finances, I have no reason to dispute that and will therefore apologize for interpreting them otherwise.

I have always been a firm believer in the precept that one cannot convince someone with words that his financial or employment situation/security is much different than what it is, so let's just leave it at that. People know whether they or their family/friends have jobs, how secure they are in those jobs, and how content they are with their financial situation.

There's really no point to belabor the matter beyond that.

[AntiGuv]

I am an agnostic on the economy, which I suppose is a step up from the doom-n-gloomer I was this time last year. ;^)

You are correct, we most certainly shall see!

[Coop]

Good update, thanks. If anyone did not notice, my '04 source was about a month older than this one. Even better news than I thought for President Bush.

[Coop]

There's really no point to belabor the matter beyond that.

I agree. But do keep in mind, the 2.x million jobs lost is only one measurement. The other - the household survey, which is rarely if ever mentioned by the media - shows a loss of only 200-300K IIRC. A huge discrepancy which should at the least be addressed by an objective [giggle] media.

[Atlas Sneezed]

It looks like Bush's vulnerability is that he is credited with a LOT of "lean" state electoral votes, while the Dem has almost none to lose in a shift.

With all respect, this could reflect unintended analyst bias. But that does not undermine the value of this excellent analysis.

[Wallace T.]

Effective use of the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI in certain large cities, such as Detroit, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland, and New Orleans, would thwart attempts by big city machine politicians from stuffing ballot boxes. Had the GOP not stopped fraudulent voting in Kansas City and St. Louis in 2000, Missouri would have gone for Gore, which would have made the subsequent battle for Florida irrelevant. Certain non-metro counties in northern New Mexico and near Indian reservations would also be good targets for Federal investigation.

Additionally, close supervision of the south Florida counties where the "condo commandos" cluster would be advisable. One would think that the right to vote in Florida means that the right to vote in New York or New Jersey using an absentee ballot would be lost. Perhaps these elderly liberals should be reminded that "one person, one vote" is applicable to them. A few examples should be made of these people through fines or jail time and duly publicized in the New York and south Florida media.

If the GOP plays by Marquis of Queensbury rules against the Democrats' usual gutter fighting tactics, they will lose. This is especially true if the Kerry-Kennedy crowd, the Democrats' equivlaent to country club Republicans, makes peace with the Clintons and their henchmen.

[basque69]

Please add me to the ping list.

[Teacher317]

Dales' Prediction: It would take a perfect storm for New Jersey to go for Bush. There will not be one.

Then why is NJ in the slightly for Bush column?

[AntiGuv]

My personal view is that whichever of the two standards is a closer reflection of empirical economic reality will be the one that will better reflect what will happen for the upcoming election. Quite frankly, I don't personally know what to make of the household survey (yes, I'm aware of all the arguments involving the two reports) but I lean toward the payrolls report simply because President Bush's poll standings and perceptions of the economy suggest to me that it is the better reflection of the economic landscape.

That being said, if it is true that the household survey is the more representative and applicable of the two, then I think this will become quite clear by the time Election Day rolls around.

One other minor point, I am not predicting a Bush loss in November even if it appears that way from my remarks. In fact, my current projection has the Electoral College tied at 269-269 if the election proves closely competitive, and so I would assume the Republican House would put Bush back in office. Moreover, I have many more states that I think likely to move from Kerry toward Bush than from Bush toward Kerry from that current baseline.

A lot can and will happen. At the present time, neither a 40 state Bush victory nor a 35 state Kerry victory would especially surprise me (though the latter more so).

[Iron Eagle]

I love your analysis. I thank you for it. I think it is just the type of substantive analysis FR used to be so famous for. We could sure use more of it.

Anyway, I would only comment this, with respect to NJ. I think New Jersey is now a safe state for democrats. As a native New Jersyian, and someone who was active in the party, and ran as a republican there, it has been trendy hard left for sometime.

NJ combines several hard left constituencies. A Large African American population, large Spanish population, large Jewish population, and scores of soccer moms combine with enormous numbers of New York/Long Island transplants to create a voting block that is too powerful to win a statewide election. (Indeed, many traditional republicans have, like me, headed south.)

Of course, there are many Republican strongholds within the state, but on a statewide basis, a win here by a Republican would be as big as any win in the Northeast. New Jersey, has been lost to Democratic special interests.

[JohnnyZ]

Then why is NJ in the slightly for Bush column?

The polling data available suggests Bush has a lead in NJ at this point. So if the election were held today, Bush might win. The expectation is that NJ will return to its natural state in the Democrat column eventually.

[Coop]

I agree, the two reports are curious. But I find the lack of objective comparisons of the two reports much more telling. I tend to think ground truth is closer to the lower number (household) than the higher (payrolls). Why? Two reasons, both anecdotal (there's that word again!):
1) Consumer spending has been boosting the economy for a few years now. I have trouble believing it could remain that strong given an economy where 2.x million jobs really went away without being replaced. (Yes, I'm aware of the tax cut impacts, the refinancing boom, and America's fascination with overextending their credit.) Even with all that, I still find it curious.
2) The "virtual" work environment makes it much easier for folks to work from home, going into business for themselves. Things that would understandably be missed on a payroll report.

One other point which is a bit more "concrete" than the previous two - Wall Street knows much more about all this than I do. Yet the market has skyrocketed over the past year, even though job creation acc to Payrolls has been lagging. I realize profits is a big driver of the market, but overall economic factors are paid close attention to. I think the big players would be much more cautious with their investments were the economic factors reflecting a negative outlook or current environment.

Just my two cents (which was worth only 1.2 cents a year ago...)

[JohnnyZ]

It looks like Bush's vulnerability is that he is credited with a LOT of "lean" state electoral votes, while the Dem has almost none to lose in a shift.

Most of the lean states are pretty solid, IMO. I think the "Slight" category has the states that are truly competitive, and the Democrats have more of those.

Of course, it's subjective anyway.

[JohnnyZ]

Just my two cents (which was worth only 1.2 cents a year ago...)

Did you factor in the weak dollar? I guess it's not a big problem if you're spending it here.

[Chris Talk]

It seems that map makes Texas and some other Bush states too small, and the Northeast too large.

I think the only States where I would put them differently from you, is that I think Oregon and New Mexico will come down in the Bush column. MN is a real poser, a "tossup." Silly polls in NJ, I cannot imagine Republicans have a chance there.

[Dales]

I did explain that in the thread where New Jersey was examined, and I have explained it a few times since.

For those who skipped reading the articles or who didn't catch subsequent in-thread explanations, I'll repeat it.

Here is what was in the eigth installment, where the 'call' was made:

New Jersey

Electoral Votes: 15

2000 Result

Gore 56%

Bush 40%

Background: New Jersey used to be considered a Republican state. Those days have passed, although there are still some signs of life. In the last 10 Presidential elections it has gone 1-6-3 with the Republican wins coming in the middle, the last Clinton win and the Gore win were by such substantial margins that it is hard to avoid the feeling that New Jersey is trending leftward.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat
9/8/03	Rutgers	Link	802 Adults	3.5%	Bush	43%	Unnamed Democrat	35%
9/15/03	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	36%	Unnamed Democrat	29%
1/11/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	40%	Unnamed Democrat	32%

Punditry: If I had to guess, the next New Jersey poll will show Kerry ahead of Bush. However, it has been very interesting how well Bush's numbers have fared here in the Garden State. While my gut tells me that this is going to change, the numbers indicate that it should as of now be in the Leans for Bush category. I want to see one more poll before I can do that though, given the Clinton/Gore margins. Slight Advantage for Bush.

To repeat the last portion with different language since many appear to be missing it, generally I just go with what the numbers say, confident that any errors will correct themselves over time. I do not do that dogmatically though; I did last year and I have decided that it was a mistake. If I was just going to go by the numbers, I would not have put NJ as 'slightly Bush' but rather in the more determinate 'leaning Bush' category. Simply put, the polls in hand indicate that is where it should be.

However, I used my judgement to say that since I expect NJ to go the other way, I will knock it down a notch. That is why it was placed in 'slight'. I suppose I could have just totally ignored all the polls and just put it where I think things will go, but if I was going to do that there would be no need to actually look at anything or see if evidence is pointing to something outside of conventional wisdom.

I do expect NJ to move to the Kerry side. I said as much. But by the methodology I use, it is not there yet.

Thanks

[Coop]

Did you factor in the weak dollar?

Oh, geez! Now I have to start all over again! Curses!

[Neets]

The LEAST I could do for you, is to add you to the ping LIST.

[Neets]

Done

[Dales]

Blame the Edwards' camp. They made the shape of the map. Thanks