Electoral College Breakdown, Installment Eleven (The Battlegrounds)

various

[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.