Electoral College Breakdown, Installment Eleven (The Battlegrounds)

various

[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