[Dales]

I am planning on updating the ECB on Sunday evenings from now on.

[Dales]

Thank you for the map!

Neets, ping away.

[tkathy]

really interesting.

[not-alone]

great work thanks

[mhking]

Fantastic work, all three of you! This is an invaluable resource that points out where efforts need to be concentrated!

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

the battleground looks to be a referrendum on the economy and on Iraq.

Right! The economy, the economy and, finally, the economy will be the issue Dems can win with. That is, if they can win at all. If, by Fall, Bush can get the unemployment rate below 5% and a semblance of real elections and a stable government in Iraq, he is untouchable.

I have little doubt about success in Iraq. The economy if iffy, but if recovery continues it will generate wealth, which has to generate jobs, though certain geographic sectors will continue to feel pain for some time.

[Coop]

NJ slight Pubbie?!? Who did the poll? PhiKapMom of OK voters? :-)

[Huck]

New Jersey will be solidly blue.

[Cboldt]

Awesome job *bump*

[Neets]

Ping

[Remole]

Great, great work.

Demonstrates the political wisdom--for Kerry--to pick Rendell as running mate.

[commish]

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

TO me this is the most tellng statement in your entire analysis. In 2000 the Battleground states were all states that BUsh won, now they are almost all safely Bush.

The states that are shaping up to be Battlegrounds states this election are all areas won by Gore. This is very important.

The Dems are not fighting to win Bush states, they are having to spend money and fight to keep states they won in 2000. This is very telling, and bodes very well for Bush.

Kerry cannot win unless he can take states from Bush, if his whole campaign is playing defense and protecting states Gore won -- then Bush has already won.

[chimera]

Your analysis of NV fails to account for the unpopularity of the Yucca Mountain project, which Bush favors (correctly so). The Rats will hammer him with it. The Republican Senator has been forced against his better judgment to throw in his lot with the anti-Yucks, or risk committing political hiri kiri. I think the Rats pick off NV on this issue alone.

The NE will be solidly blue from MD northward. Kerry and the Rats are just too strong in these traditionally Rat states, and even those that have been Republican in the past have been trending Rat lately (e.g., NJ).

OR and NM will be close again, but don't discount the last-minute appearance of ballot boxes that will push the states over to the Rats (remember NM in 2000).

OH and WV will be the real battleground states this year. The job losses issue again. I can tell you as an observer "on the ground" in OH that both Kerry and Edwards have made recent appearances here and they talked about that almost exclusively, hammering Bush and Republicans mercilessly with it. The Rats smell blood in the water on this issue, and their going to feed the frenzy like nothing you've seen before. Bush better come up with a way to blunt this issue, or he's toast. The first thing is to tell "statistics" Snow and "stock market" Chao and "put some ice on that" Mankiw to STFU!

Bush had better pick up MN and maybe IA or get the ranch ready back in Crawford to move back into.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[JasonC]

Michigan and Pennsylvannia in the Dem column makes it tough to reach the threshold. Possible, obviously. But I'd be a lot more comfortable if either or both of those looked like they might be won.

[.cnI redruM]

Excellent work. I think you modeled a plausible scenario. I think Bush has slightly more pad than you give him, but not much. I see Bush getting about 325 and giving the GOP about +5 in the House and +2 or +3 in The Senate.

[GiveEmDubya]

I agree with every one of your predictions, especially NH and ME-02.

[Plutarch]

As for what Bush can do to firm up this region [the Midwest/Northeast]..."

For Kerry, you go over a list of V.P. candidates. There is no reason that Bush could not find a new job for Cheney, and substitute a V.P. candidate who would actually help the ticket generally, or capture a battleground state in particular. Any suggestions or analysis?

(I've been beating the drum for Santorum).

[Clintonfatigued]

Very impressive work. I think that this year, Ohio will be ground zero, not Florida. It's historical record that no Republican has been elected President without carrying Ohio, and it has suffered a lot of job losses lately.