Electoral College Breakdown 2004, April 14th Update

ECB 2004 ^ | 4/14/04

[Dales]

I Wouldn't Touch It With a 10 Foot Poll

Unsustainable Contradictions

The best national poll for my money is the Battleground Poll. Produced by a joint effort between Democrat pollster Celinda Lake of Snell, Lake, Perry and Associates, and Republican pollster Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group, it avoids the partisanship that sometimes can slip into the sampling methods of other polls. The partisanship can come out in the strategic analysis each does for the respective parties, although the spin presented is usually substantive. This year's springtime Battleground Poll, released this week, is excellent as always.

Ms. Lake takes an optimistic look for the Democrats, saying “it is difficult to find a precedent for an incumbent with such anemic numbers who has gone on to win re-election.” However, Ms. Lake’s analysis contains a significant error which is both unusual for her and could possibly have impacted her optimism; she states “Consequently, voters are unhappy with the job Bush is doing; fully half now disapprove of his performance in office (50 percent disapprove to 45 percent approve)” while in actuality the polling numbers presented show that she has those numbers transposed. Her prescription for Kerry is “to minimize or neutralize Bush’s dominance on the critical dimension of security… and turn the agenda to the economy.”

Mr. Goeas starts his analysis by focusing on the partisan divide in America. One side “clearly identifies with President Bush as a strong, moral, decisive leader,” “views America’s economy on the rebound and credits President George W. Bush.” The other side “sees Bush as an ineffectual leader who has ignored the war on terrorism to pursue a vendetta against Saddam Hussein in Iraq” and “is largely focused on the economic downturn and job loss.” His conclusion is one that I have been asserting for weeks (but am now questioning): “This presidential election truly appears to be starting exactly where it left off in November of 2000… In that election, turnout (not polling) was the final determinant of the election!”

The poll has some interesting results. The unaided ballot question, which Mr. Goeas points out is one of the strongest predictors of the coming election, yields a 4-point Bush lead. However, when voters are given the names and are queried, “if you had to make a choice”, the gap closes to a 1 point Kerry lead (Nader is not a factor, scoring a meager 1%). The numbers are as close as can be here too, as both get 41% saying “definitely”, 1% saying “leaning”, and the remainder saying “probably.” Another way of looking at this is that voters who need to be reminded who the candidates are break 2-1 in favor of John Kerry.

The country is decidedly pessimistic. Well over half of all voters (57%) think that the country is off the right track, compared to just 38% who think we are heading in the right direction. Strikingly, most are not ambivalent about this question. Nearly three quarters of those polled feel strongly about their answer to this question, and those who do take the negative view twice as frequently (47% to 26%). With this in mind, it is very surprising that the President is running even with Kerry; one would expect that if that many people think we need to change direction, that the challenger would be winning comfortably, unless the challenger was viewed so negatively that voters would shun him. However, Kerry has a net favorable rating of +13. The current state of the electorate is contradictory.

Is such a disparity sustainable? There always is that possibility; if something is measured a particular way at one point in time, it can certainly be measured that way at another point in time. However, it is unlikely. As people focus more on the election, the contradictions tend to fade away. However, should this status quo be maintained, then Kerry has very little room for growth. A full 93% of those who think the country is on the wrong track support him, which is about as close to unanimity as one can get in a poll. He also would need to retain his two to one advantage among those who are currently so unfocused on the election that they need the candidate names given to them in order to name a preference. Further, if this status quo does somehow remain, then Kerry faces another challenge, for it would mean another election where turnout is everything. The Democrat base, which energizes the get-out-the-vote machine, is significantly to the left of the country and is angry. Howard Dean angry. Al Gore “he played upon our fears” angry. Moveon.com angry. But the public is not angry; only 10% said they are angered by the state of affairs. The overwhelming sentiment (33%) is that of worry, which is a much weaker emotion at driving turnout, and playing to the angry base is likely to turn off those who do not share that emotion.

Much more likely is that there will be a change, in one of three forms. Either the Bush campaign will manage to drive up Kerry’s negatives to where he is not a viable option for the pessimistic (or Kerry does so himself with some unbelievable gaffes), or people will decide that things are not going so bad after all, or Kerry will pull away.

Of these three possibilities, the least likely to happen is that voters will become so disdainful of Kerry that they would ignore their dour outlook of the nation’s outlook and vote for the President. Even should there be a 20 point swing in Kerry’s net approval rating, it still would unlikely be enough to overcome a 19 point gap in voter optimism, especially when the pessimistic feel so strongly about it. In all likelihood, this probably played into the calculation by the Bush campaign when they decided to decrease current advertising levels by 30%.

There is reason for the Bush campaign to feel optimistic about changing people’s views of the direction of the country. Merely 8% of those polled think they will be worse off financially a year from now. And on matters of national security, terrorism, and Iraq, Bush enjoys substantial leads over Kerry. Again there is a contradiction; people feel we are moving in the wrong direction, but do not think they will be worse of economically and think that Bush’s plans on foreign affairs and terror are right. It is possible that this dichotomy will remain, but much more likely that people will change one of these views.

Further, it is very unlikely that the current disconnect over the state of the economy is going to continue. Either the economy is improving, or it is not. If it is improving, then there will be many months’ worth of evidence to back up that perception, and fewer will believe we are on the wrong path. This would be a disaster for the Kerry campaign, which they clearly realize as indicated by their attempt to redefine the Misery Index, including in it components that cannot be changed by November. It is a valiant effort, but if the economy is truly improving, efforts to portray it as not improving will be fruitless. And if the economy sputters, then the President is in serious trouble.

Iraq is also going to be clarified by November. Bush has a timeline out which will either be made, or it will not. Things will have deteriorated as some fear will happen, or they will not have. There will be spin, and there will be some ambiguity, but by and large the direction will be more readily discernable than it is right now.

Which will it be? Will the delicate status quo, unbalanced and contradictory as it is, hold through November? Will things be better than they are now? Or worse? The quandary for Kerry is that he likely loses the first two cases. If things remain the same, he has to maintain his near-unanimous hammerlock on those who think the country is on the wrong track while simultaneously exciting the angry left base (for turnout) without alienating those who are worried, not angry, and who generally like the President as a person. And if things are better, the pool of those who think the country is heading in the wrong direction will not be large enough. His entire election hinges on the coming events of the next several months validating the pessimists’ view that the country is heading in the wrong direction. He has the unenviable task of having to hope for misery and for death.

For the past few weeks, I have been stating that I believed this election would play out much as 2000’s did. I no longer have that opinion, and am back to the stance I had at the start of the year. Things are close now, but are unlikely to remain that way. The contradictions that exist within the opinions of the electorate will be resolved, and the underlying issues that right now are so unclear (such as if the economy is recovering, and which way things will go in Iraq) will have clarified. The popular vote will probably never open up all that much due to the partisan divide of the country, but the bet here is that most of the battleground states, and possibly some others, will move together to one candidate. And since I believe that the rainy outlook on the economy is based on false beliefs-- fully a third of voters think we are currently in a recession according to a recent Rasmussen poll, when in reality we have been out of a recession for many months)—the money here says that by October it will be clear that President Bush will be re-elected.

---

This Week's Polling Updates Overview

For most of the week, it appeared as if the pollsters had decided to go on spring break, as no state polls came out until Sunday. We ended up getting a few, with the majority just reinforcing what we already knew. The biggest surprise was, ironically, just such a case, where New Jersey validated previous results showing that to be a horse race. New York opened back up for Kerry, but the gap is still about 15 points less than it was in 2000, which again validates the New Jersey result (since Gore won the Garden State by 16).

Just before publication, Rasmussen released a new result for Florida, showing it to be neck and neck.

---

	Oklahoma
	Electoral Votes: 7
	2000 Result
	Bush 60%
	Gore 38%

Background: Republicans have won every election here since LBJ.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
3/1/04	Wilson Research	NA	300 RV	5.7%	Bush	50%	Kerry	40%	Bush +10
4/??/04	Insider Advantage	Link	LV	?	Bush	47%	Kerry	35%	Bush +12

Punditry: Much to my surprise, Oklahoma is still relatively competitive for a southern state. The Insider Advantage poll may have an explanation: Governor Brad Henry's approval ratings are through the roof. Insider Advantage suggests that Kerry may want to look to Henry as a running mate. I think that would likely cause Henry's approval ratings to plummet, since he has been able to avoid many of the positions of the national Democratic party so far. Strong Advantage for Bush.

---

	Massachusettss
	Electoral Votes: 12
	2000 Result
	Gore 60%
	Bush 33%

Background: They like them liberal in Massachusetts. Reagan did carry the state twice (barely), and Ike took it twice, but that's about it since 1924. Most of the time it has not been very close at all.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
1/03	Mass. Insight	Link	457 Voters	4%	Bush	37%	Kerry	53%	Kerry +16
4/03	Mass. Insight	Link	457 Voters	4%	Bush	49%	Kerry	43%	Bush +6
12/03	KRC Communications Research	Link	RV	4%	Bush	38%	Kerry	56%	Kerry +18
4/5/04	University of Massachusetts	Link	400 RV	5%	Bush	32%	Kerry	54%	Kerry +22

Punditry: They love Kerry in Massachusetts. Safe for Kerry.

---

	Louisiana
	Electoral Votes: 9
	2000 Result
	Bush 53%
	Gore 45%

Background: Louisiana votes for southerners in Presidential elections. George Wallace won here. Carter beat Ford. Clinton beat Dole. And Clinton beat Bush (with a big help from Perot). All others since JFK were won by Republicans.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
11/9/03	JPI Polling	Link	RV	4%	Bush	50%	Unnamed Democrat	34%	Bush +16
3/29/04	DeVille and Associates and Southern Media & Opinion Research	Link	700 RV	3.8%	Bush	52%	Kerry	38%	Bush +14

Punditry: Even after the Kerry surge, Louisiana is sitting pretty for President Bush. One bright spot for the Democrats is that Jindal was leading Blanco by almost as impressive margins just a few weeks before losing the election to the current Governor. One thing to keep an eye on is the retirement of popular Senator John Breaux, who is looking to move into the private sector. Should there be a Kerry/Breaux ticket, then Louisiana may end up being not so comfortable.Strong Advantage for Bush.

---

	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.

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.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
9/8/03	Rutgers	Link	802 Adults	3.5%	Bush	43%	Unnamed Democrat	35%	Bush +8
9/15/03	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	36%	Unnamed Democrat	29%	Bush +7
9/25/03	Quinnipiac	Link	RV	3.1%	Bush	48%	Kerry	43%	Bush +5
11/10/03	Quinnipiac	Link	1,027 RV	3.1%	Bush	46%	Kerry	43%	Bush +3
1/11/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	40%	Unnamed Democrat	32%	Bush +8
1/13/04	Rutgers	Link	823 RV	4.2%	Bush	41%	Unnamed Democrat	38%	Bush +3
4/10/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	802 RV, Nader not an option	3.5%	Bush	47%	Kerry	48%	Kerry +1
4/10/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	802 RV, Nader an option	3.5%	Bush	48%	Kerry	44%	Bush +4

Punditry: Can we finally stop telling me how nuts I am to think that New Jersey is competitive? It is. Slight Advantage for Bush.

Now if it will be by election day is anyone's guess. But the decision to hold the convention in nearby New York City doesn't seem so nutty any longer, does it?

---

	F		New York
			Electoral Votes: 31
			2000 Result
			Gore 60%
			Bush 35%

Background: From 1960 onward, Republicans have carried the Empire State only three times. Nixon beat McGovern, Reagan beat Carter, and Reagan beat Mondale. Even Dukakis won here.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
4/03	Marist	Link	RV	4%	Bush	32%	Unnamed Democrat	39%	Dem +7
9/23/03	Marist	Link	RV	4%	Bush	32%	Unnamed Democrat	48%	Dem +16
10/28/03	Quinnipiac	NA	RV	4%	Bush	42%	Kerry	50%	Dem +8
11/19/03	Zogby	Link	LV	4%	Bush	41%	Kerry	46%	Dem +5
1/7/04	Marist	Link	617 RV	4%	Bush	34%	Unnamed Democrat	36%	Dem +2
4/12/04	Quinnipiac	Link	1,279 RV, Nader an option	2.7%	Bush	35%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +14
4/12/04	Quinnipiac	Link	1,279 RV, Nader not an option	2.7%	Bush	36%	Kerry	53%	Kerry +17

Punditry: In March, I said "I fully expect the Empire State to move strongly to the left in the next poll for the state." I am originally from New York. I know my home state.

The most interesting thing to me about this poll is how unbelievably popular in New York Mayor Giuliani is. Sen. Chuck Schumer enjoys a 61-19 approval/disapproval rating split, indicative of a very popular politician. However, when he is matched up against Rudy? Mayor Giuliani beats Sen. Schumer 56 -- 36 percent.

---

	F		Florida
			Electoral Votes: 27
			2000 Result
			Bush 48.85%
			Gore 48.84%

Background: Despite the best efforts of the results-oriented Florida Supreme Court, Bush held on to win the state in 2000, just as every recount conducted afterwards validated. Did you know that since 1948, though, that only three times has Florida gone for the Democrat candidate? Johnson got 51%, Carter got 52%, and Clinton (2nd term) got 48% (with Perot taking 9%). More times than not, the Republican has come closer to 60%. Why Bush underperformed here to such a degree is something his campaign must rectify.

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.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
4/29/03	Mason-Dixon	Link	RV	5%	Bush	53%	Unnamed Democrat	38%	Bush +15
12/3/03	Schroth & Associates	Link	800 RV	3.5%	Bush	43%	Unnamed Democrat	37%	Bush +6
1/15/04	Rasmussen Reports	Link	LV	5%	Bush	47%	Unnamed Democrat	45%	Bush +2
2/27/04	Research 2000	Link	500 LV	4%	Bush	47%	Kerry	42%	Bush +5
3/4/04	American Research Group	Link	600 LV	4%	Bush	44%	Kerry	45%	Kerry +1
3/4/04	Schroth & Associates	Link	800 RV	3.5%	Bush	43%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +6
3/14/04	Rasmussen	Link	400 LV	5%	Bush	45%	Kerry	48%	Kerry +3
4/1/04	Mason-Dixon	Link	625 RV	4%	Bush	51%	Kerry	43%	Bush +8
4/13/04	Rasmussen Reports	Link	500 LV	5%	Bush	46%	Kerry	47%	Kerry +1

Punditry: Rasmussen says Florida will be 2000 redux. Seems fitting at this stage of the game. Tossup.

---

Summary Table

Effective National Popular Results: Bush 46.1%, Kerry 44.2%

Kerry E					F Bush
Safe	Strong	Lean	Slight	Tossup	Slight	Lean	Strong	Safe
DC (3)	DE (3)	CA (55) K53-B44 3/11/04	-	WV (5) B47-K46 3/24/04	PA (21) B46-K40 3/29/04	AR (6)	SC (8) B52-UD36 7/28/03	AK (3)
HI (4)	VT (3) HD50-B38 10/2/03	IA (7) K51-B41 3/23/04	-	NM (5) B46-K45 4/1/04	WI (10) B49-K45 3/31/04	VA (13) B48-WC33 12/3/03	MS (6) B49-UD29 12/22/03	ND (3)
RI (4) K53-B31 2/7/04	ME (4) K51-B38 3/4/04	MD (10) K48-B43 3/24/04	-	OH (20) B46-K45 4/2/04	NH (4) B48-K43 4/1/04	GA (15) B47-UD43 2/4/04	SD (3) B50-UD39 2/5/04	NE (5)
MA (12) K54-B32 4/5/04	IL (21) K47-B39 3/13/04	MN (10) K50-B38 4/2/04	-	FL (27) K47-B46 4/13/04	NJ (15) B48-K44 4/10/04	NC (15) B51-K43 3/11/04	KY (8) B57-K41 2/16/04	WY (3)
-	CT (7) K52-B33 3/28/04	MI (17) K51-B41 4/4/04	-	OR (7) B47-K45 4/7/04	-	NV (5) B49-K38 3/17/04	KS (6) B57-K39 3/4/04	MT (3) B52-UD27 5/16/03
-	NY (31) K49-B35 4/12/04	WA (11) K46-B41 4/5/04	-	-	-	AZ (10) B51-K42 3/18/04	IN (11) B52-K37 3/24/04	TX (34) B54-K35 3/6/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	TN (11) B52-K41 3/22/04	OK (7) B47-K35 4/04	ID (4) B55-K23 3/17/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	MO (11) B49-K42 3/23/04	LA (9) B52-K38 3/28/04	AL (9) B59-K27 3/18/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	CO (9) B49-K40 4/3/04	-	UT (5) B66-K24 3/25/04
Totals
Kerry States			Battleground States			Bush States
23	69	110	0	64	50	95	58	69
202			114			222

Discuss ECB2004 On Free Republic

---

Last week's quiz:

What two consecutive elections featured the smallest percentage of states that changed from voting for one party in the first but another party in the second?

Leaving out the Washington elections (I didn’t specify, but I meant after the change was made so that the electors were not casting two votes), the first, best answer was given by AuH2ORepublican:

Between 1884 and 1888, only 2 states (NY and IN) switched (both from Democrat Cleveland to Republican B. Harrison), which was only 5.26% of the 38 states then in the Union.

If we only looked at elections since 1912 (when there were 48 or more states in the Union), there were 4 sets of consecutive elections in which only 4 states (or 8.33%, since there were 48 states in ech of those cases) switched: 1920-1924 (OK and TN from R to D, KY from D to R, and WI from R to Progressive); 1932-1936 (NH, CT, PA and DE from R to D); 1940-1944 (WI, OH and WY from D to R, and MI from R to D); and 1952-1956 (LA, KY and WV from D to R, and MO from R to D).

Between 1992 and 1996, 5 states (or 10%) switched parties (MT, CO and GA from D to R, and FL and AZ from R to D). So close, but no cigar.

Give that man a cigar. This week's quiz: Which election featured the first independent media matchup poll, and did it get the election right?

[BobinIL]

Ok I don't understand something. In the last three polls taken in IL the lead for Kerry has gone from +18% to +8% but they changed IL from pink (lean Kerry) to Red (strong Kerry) Something is fishy here

[Wallace T.]

Delaware has only three electoral votes, but with its neighbors Pennsylvania and New Jersey trending toward Bush, it is hard to believe that Delaware should be counted as strongly pro-Kerry. The Wilmington metro area is part of the East Coast megalopolis, closely allied with metro Philadelphia. If the other parts of the Delaware Valley are not strongly pro-Kerry, it is hard to believe that metro Wilmington would differ. The rest of the state is rural, with demographics closer to the Tidewater South than to the rural Northeast: a basically English-American, Protestant (usually Methodist) majority and a large African-American minority. Agriculture (mostly poultry) and tourism are the principal industries, not unlike the Tidewater areas of the states to Delaware's south. Dover, the capital city, has the usual characteristics of state capitals, with a large number of liberal-leaning state employees.

The bottom line is that Delaware should be in play in this election.

[Hurricane Andrew]

Excellent work, as always!

I think thnigs are actually looking pretty good at this point for Bush. If Kerry's not toasting him now, with everything going his way and prior to any debates (which I think will make him look like Gore, without the presonality), then he's done.

BTW, thumbs up for your insight into NJ. I do think it will be in play. Their Governor is a moron, and South Jersey is getting the spillover effect of the Bush ad blitz in the Philadelphia market. Great promo without dumping any hard $$$ into the state yet. I can't wait until the convention. Once its over, I have a feeling that the Bush team is going to unleash "shock and awe" of a different kind.

[Owen]

Hey! New Jersey is in the wrong column!!!

:)

[KQQL]

I just don't trust any of his polls.

[AntiGuv]

Sure, why not! I'll be somewhat surprised if there was an earlier poll than that one. I seem to remember it was a Reader's Digest poll, but that's just a dim recollection.

[JLS]

Further, it is very unlikely that the current disconnect over the state of the economy is going to continue. Either the economy is improving, or it is not. If it is improving, then there will be many months’ worth of evidence to back up that perception, and fewer will believe we are on the wrong path.

_________________________________________________________________

I am not so sure about this. The US economy has been growing countinously since the 4th quarter of 2001. Actually since 2000, only in the 3rd quarter of 2000 and the third quarter of 2003 did real GDP actually shrink. So how much evidence does this third imagining a recession actually need?

Clinton won the first time on a lie about the economy. That as we remember was "the worse economy in the last 50 years" when it clearly was not. It seems dangerously for US representative institutions that certain voters are willing to believe what a candidate says about the economy over the actual facts. And since the press does not call certain liars on their lies, voting seems less connected to what is actually happening.

[montomike]

Exactly. I said this from that very night. I was so mad. It was a dem-network dirty trick. It was totally fraudulent to call Florida an hour prior to the polls closing. It convinced me that the fix was in for Gore.

[KQQL]

OR :

Bush 47%
Kerry 45%
Nader 6%

http://osrl.uoregon.edu/press/report/2004PresElection.pdf

[BJClinton]

I thought y'all might be interested in this.

Thanks for the work, Dales.

[bobjam]

Try these factoids on for size: In the last six Presidential elections combined, the democrats have won a former "Solid South" state a total of 9 times out of 66 attempts. Clinton won Fl, Tn, La and Ark in 1996. Clinton won Ga, Tn, La and Ark in 1992. Carter won his own state (not by much) in 1980. In fact, John F Kennedy is the most recent non-Southern Democrat to win a Southern state. Ouch. Barry Goldwater's strongest suppot, by the way, was in the South.

Kerry has a very steep hill to climb down here.

[Dales]

Actually, what happened was it was sitting on the cusp between Strong and Lean a while back, with one poll showing it a double digit lead and one showing it an 8 point lead. Then in a single week in March, there were two polls both showing it a double digit lead (with one being closer to 20 points).

The most recent poll showed it just below double digits again, but I was left with a series of gaps that looks like this: 11, 8, 18, 15, 8. To me, that suggests that while it is close to the border between Strong and Lean, it is probably on the Strong side.

[Dales]

Thanks!

[TomEwall]

You touched on some things I had been thinking about. One was the "on the wrong track" question, which has been very negative, which usually portends poorly for the incumbant. In this case it's had little effect. The Battleground people pointed out that this number briefly improved dramatically when Suddam Hussein was captured, but then went back when the negative job report numbers came. I think your conjecture that the disconnect won't continue makes sense. However, I can see a scenario where the election remains close, even if this disconnect gets resolved.

The scenario is that as Kerry gets better known, his favorability numbers decrease (which I think is likely), and some event happens, like the recent attacks in Iraq, which has a negative impact on Bush. So you get two factors working in contrary directions, and the net result is they pretty much cancel each other, keeping the election close.

I noticed on an earlier Rasmussen write up of the national poll that over 20% of *Republicans* think we're in a recession. The March numbers made a big impact on me, as has the recent economic news. I was skeptical of the recovery until recently, so I can understand the pessimistic view that many still hold. I agree with you that the view that people hold should improve with time as the economy appears to be quite strong indeed. This would ordinarily imply a lock for Bush, but this time around we have the wild card of Iraq.

Another thing the poll pointed out was that historically Democrats need a 7% lead in the question of who can better keep America prosperous to be in contention. Kerry has exactly a 7% lead using their full sample, but no lead at all considering only likely voters. As time goes on, this result should get better and better for Bush.

I think the voters to a large extent aren't aware of the good economic news because that news has been overshadowed by the events in Iraq. As things settle down there, they should become more aware of the economic news.

I'm looking forward to more polls from Battleground.

[Neets]

Pingeroonie

[richmwill]

I have a strong feeling that Ohio and PA will decide who wins this election.

[KarlInOhio]

I'm still looking for it, but I found this on google:

Release: May 9, 2000

UI political scientist says Democrats will win White House in 'near landslide'

IOWA CITY, Iowa -- Contrary to nearly every current political opinion poll, University of Iowa Political Science Professor Michael Lewis-Beck says Al Gore, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, will win the November election with 56.2 percent of the popular vote. "It's not even going to be close," he said.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/2000/may/0509forecast.html

[onyx]

Thanks.
I'll study this later.
Right now I am having trouble
getting away from here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117359/posts

[Doctor Stochastic]

Monte Carlo simulation of Electoral College (based on your April 14 poll) gives: Bush 67.9% probability of winning (and Kerry 32.1%) and an average EV edge of 282 to 256.

This assumes that in the strong states, the leader is preferred by 60% to 40%, and 55-45, 52-48, 51-49, 50-50 for the others respectively.

[tjwmason]

I am observing the U.S. elections from afar (that is from your closest ally over the seas), and find a few things interesting.

First, and most importantly, it seems to me that two issues are most crucial. First, the Economy, if it starts pulling up strongly between now and November, and if people believe that it is pulling up well then we can quote former President Clinton with great alacrity. Secondly, the War on Terror; this has the potential to be a massive yet unpredictable influence. For example, if Osama bin Laden is arrested shortly before the election then whatever else happens G.W.B. will get over 300 college votes; o.t.o.h. if it is perceived that Iraq is suffering from a gradual collapse into anarchy, and that more U.S. troops are needed then President Bush could hemmorage support.

I was somewhat surprised to see that Reagan carried Massachusetts (I would have been a boy of 4 at the time, and so did not notice even with my precocious childhood), was there any great thing behind this, or was it just a massive land-slide win?

Finally, and I know that I do not have to say this on Freerepublic, but this election is utterly crucial. By this time next year the three most senior countries in the Coalition of the Willing will have had elections. In the U.S. and Australia a right-wing leader faces a left-wing opponent who has been critical of his actions in the W.o.T. A victory for Sen. Kerry, or for the Australian Labour Party would have massive repercusions, our election is less relevant we have a leftist leader who supports fighting terror, opposed by a right-wing one who is even more certain of where we must stand. The U.S. presidential vote is possibly as crucial as any change of leadership since the House of Commons kicked our Neville Chamberlain and installed Sir Winston Churchill.

Go Bush.