Electoral College Breakdown 2004, April 14th Update

ECB 2004 ^ | 4/14/04

[TomEwall]

This was interesting. I hadn't seen it before. Here's what they say about the negative keys:

"The following four keys fall against the Republicans:

*The weak economy during Bush's term as compared to the boom years of Clinton's two terms costs the Republicans the long-term economy key.

*The relatively modest domestic accomplishments of the Bush administration topples the policy-change key.

*The first successful foreign attack on the continental United States since the war of 1812 costs the party in power the foreign/military failure key.

*George W. Bush does not measure up to the charisma of Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, forfeiting the incumbent charisma/hero key.

Still hanging in the balance is the short-term economy key, which would fall if the economy descends into recession during the election year. Even loss of this key, however, would produce five discrepant keys, still leaving the Bush administration one key short of defeat. To predict the Republican's defeat, an economic collapse would have to reverse the verdict on another key, creating perhaps a notable challenge to Bush's nomination or a significant third-party movement."

Comments:

*The weak economy during Bush's term as compared to the boom years of Clinton's two terms costs the Republicans the long-term economy key.

I don't see this. Bush entered into office with a recession hung over from Clinton. On top of that came the corporate scandals and 9/11. Now the economy is doing well. Hard to see this one.

*The relatively modest domestic accomplishments of the Bush administration topples the policy-change key.*

I don't know what this means, but O.K.

*The first successful foreign attack on the continental United States since the war of 1812 costs the party in power the foreign/military failure key.*

This seems totally rediculous. Does that mean FDR lost this key because of Pearl Harbor? I notice they threw in "continental" so they could toss out Pearl Harbor to throw in more years. Cute.

*George W. Bush does not measure up to the charisma of Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, forfeiting the incumbent charisma/hero key.*

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

---

These criteria are interesting, but are so arbitrary I don't see how one you prognosticate upon them. They got the last election wrong, so tried to spin that.

[Quicksilver]

Thanks Dales. I look forward to your weekly EC and poll analysis. :)

I have some reservations with Rasmussen's polls, especially his state polls. However, I think his daily tracking poll is useful for spotting trends.

I put together a table showing the difference between the preference for president and their respective congressional ballot choice. I don't know what it means but I find it interesting nonetheless.

              GOP                        Dem.
Mar  Bush    Cong.    Diff.  |  Kerry    Cong.    Diff. 
  1    49      39      +10   |     45      43       +2
  8    46      36      +10   |     46      43       +3
 15    44      36       +8   |     46      43       +3
 22    48      40       +8   |     45      41       +4
 29    45      39       +6   |     46      41       +5

              GOP                        Dem.
Apr  Bush    Cong.    Diff.  |  Kerry    Cong.    Diff. 
  5    45      36       +9   |     47      41       +6
  7*   42      34       +8   |     48      44       +4
 12    46      37       +9   |     44      42       +2

* = Richard Clarke

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I have questions about a couple of the falses, but even if I give the author the benefit of the doubt that still only leaves 4 falses.

I would have serious questions about a couple of those "false" calls:

• *The first successful foreign attack on the continental United States since the war of 1812 costs the party in power the foreign/military failure key.

  It can be questioned that the "Bush Knew" tinfoilers on the Coverup Commission can carry the day with the median voter. It requires straining at gnats and the swallowing of camels on a heroic scale to hold Bush more accountable for not knowing (as many of the 911 hijackers themselves did not) that the hijackers at the controls of the airliners were kamikazee pilots, than Bush can be credited with the conquest of the Taliban and Saddam Hussain. And than Kerry can be blamed for outright opposition to the CIA budget during the Clinton Administration.

• It is one thing to say that Bush is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan's charisma, and quite another to say that Bush won't look like Reagan next to John Kerry.

[miltonim]

Thanks again

[Heatseeker]

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

Don't know where you're located, so you may already know this, but Bush has been advertising heavily on the Salisbury MD TV stations (which serve Dover and southern Delaware as well as the Eastern Shore of MD) as well as via cable. Salisbury is a cheap TV market.

Meanwhile, Sussex County has been growing at nearly twice the rate of New Castle (Wilmington). But the latter still has 64% of the population so I think Dales is basically correct. My guess is the Bush would like to drive up their numbers in Kent and Sussex and try to force Kerry to buy more in the far more expensive Philadelphia TV market than he would otherwise.

[KQQL]

Rasmussen polls usually off by atleast 3%...+ or - 3%

[tjwmason]

*The weak economy during Bush's term as compared to the boom years of Clinton's two terms costs the Republicans the long-term economy key.

I don't see this. Bush entered into office with a recession hung over from Clinton. On top of that came the corporate scandals and 9/11. Now the economy is doing well. Hard to see this one.

Your point would be valid if electors sat down with a vast pile of economic data, and a trained econonmic analyst to advise them. Of course, this is not the case. That America has recently faced a 'Clinton-recession' is actually irrelevant, that business is now doing well is potentially irrelevant. What is important is whether people think that the recession was Clinton's, and whether people feel that things are getting better. Economic 'feel-good' is frequently a lagging indicator, indeed most economic effects are better observed in the past. If there is continued jobs growth, and if people start to feel more wealthy, then Bush will get good economic credentials.

[Brandon]

I voted for Bush in 2000, and will in 2004, but I'd be happy to spin the 13 Keys failure to predict the 2000 election: It didn't fail. It accurately forecast the popular vote result, and a swing of fewer than 600 votes in Florida would have resulted in a successful prediction of the EV, as well. And other than 2000, the 13 Keys accurately predicted every presidential election since 1860. In other words, they were right 35 times out of 36.

That's a pretty darn good record, and right now the 13 Keys indicate a Bush win.

[Brandon]

One note that some bloggers have picked up on that you don't mention concerning Massachusetts: Kerry is running behind Al Gore in Massachusetts -- his own home state! Not only is he running behind Gore, but he has been consistently running behind Gore, and almost always outside the margin of error.

I do not mean to suggest that Massachusetts is in play; it is safe for Kerry. But the fact that he consistently runs 7-8 points behind Gore in Massachusetts seems to me to lend further support to the notion that NJ could be a horse race.

[Brandon]

I am curious as to why you assign what seem to be low values to the probability of victory by the leading candidate in the "strong" and "safe" states. You seem to be saying that Bush has a 40% chance of winning in Massachusetts or New York, and that Kerry has a 40% chance of winning in Texas or Idaho. Or am I misinterpreting what you're doing?

[JLS]

"A less scientific, yet historically accurate model supports the prediction of a Democratic win, Lewis-Beck said, making him even more confident that he is right and the polls are wrong. In every post-World War II presidential election, the incumbent's party has won if the unemployment rate is lower in June than it is in January of the election year. That is almost certain to be the case this year, with unemployment at its lowest levels ever and still falling, he said."
___________________________________________________________________

I wonder what in the world these people are talking about:

Year Race UrateJan UrateJun Winner
1948 Truman-Dewey 3.4 3.6 Yet incumbent Truman won???
1952 Ike-Stephenson 3.2 3.0 Yet nonincumbent GOP wins????
1956 Ike-Stephenson 4.0 4.3 Yet incumbent GOP wins???
1960 Nixon-Kennedy 5.2 5.4 Incumbent GOP loses as predicted
1964 Goldwater-Johnson 5.6 5.2 Incumbent Dem wins as predicted
1968 Nixon-Humphrey 3.7 3.7 Nonincumbent wins despite no change in unemployment rate.
1972 Nixon-McGovern 5.8 5.7 Incumbent wins as predicted
1976 Ford-Carter 7.9 7.6 Yet Incumbent GOP loses????
1980 Reagan-Carter 6.3 7.6 Nonincumbent GOP wins as predicted.
1984 Reagan-Modale 8.0 7.2 Incumbent GOP wins as predicted.
1988 GHW Bush-Duke 5.7 5.4 Incumbent GOP wins as predicted.
1992 GHW Bush-Carter 7.3 7.8 Incumbent GOP loses as predicted.
1996 Dole-Carter 5.6 5.3 Incumbent Dem wins as predicted.
2000 GW Bush-Gore 4.0 4.0 Incumbent Dem loses with no change in the unemployment rate.

So it seems this model was wrong 4 out 14 cases. But three of them were the first three. Perhaps he was quoting this test from memory and did not remember that it worked for all but one election since 1960, not since WWII? And I do not see why he thinks the unemployment rate will for sure not fall from Jan? It was 5.6 in January. It is now 5.7. It could easily be 5.5 in June.

[TomEwall]

Well when the election is that close, it's basically a coin flip, so no matter what happened it could be spun as a win. If the press hadn't called Florida for Gore in record time while people were still voting, who knows, maybe Bush would have won the popular vote.

The 13 keys predicted a Gore victory, which didn't happen. The best you could argue for would be a tie, but that's not what it predicted.

My problem with it is it seems to be completely arbitrary. How do you define these things? Who would call these 4 years a foreign/military failure? That's absurd. So was the economy thing. Who decides what "charasmastic" means. The keys don't have any sort of ground in something measureable or objective. Who gets to decide if a key has failed or not?

That being said, I'm glad the keys are boding well for Bush, and would agree that there's something to it given the accuracy. But I wonder if these keys predicted the results ahead of time, of if it's just a matter of looking for trends after the fact. Then if you look at enough data, you can find a pattern for anything. For example, the amount of snowfall in Peru has accurately predicted every election since 1910.

Or here's one. If you look at enough criteria, you might be able to spin a good economy into a bad one but creating a "misery index".

[TomEwall]

I agree with you. The perception is what's important. This election is basically 1996, except the press is on the other side, which makes it a tough haul rather than a walk in the park.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Those Pacific Northwest numbers are looking better. I hope Bush can at least pick off OR, which would make it very difficult for Kerry to get to 270. And if Bush can carry WA, it will be a 370+ EV landslide.

[Brandon]

But I wonder if these keys predicted the results ahead of time, of if it's just a matter of looking for trends after the fact. Then if you look at enough data, you can find a pattern for anything. For example, the amount of snowfall in Peru has accurately predicted every election since 1910.

A point well taken. The 13 Keys were developed in 1981. They retrospectively predicted every presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and prospectively predicted the elections from 1984 to 1996, with a near-miss for 2000.

I agree that a lot of the criteria are subjective, but I don't think that's avoidable. This seems like a pretty good measure, based on its track record -- and the analogy to snowfall in Peru is not really on point, since there's no plausible causal link between snowfall in Peru and American presidential elections, but it is plausible to think that the factors listed in the 13 Keys would have an impact on the presidential election.

I think rather than slamming the 13 Keys, it is more interesing to look at why they failed in 2000, and see if it would be a good idea to tweak them. For that, we really need more data, and presumably the 2004 election will provide us with that. If 2004 results in another failure, we should be very skeptical of the formula; if it is a success, then we might conclude that the formula remains a highly accurate, but not a perfect, predictor.

[BOOTSTICK]

Rasmussen blew the 2000 election, he said Bush would win by apx 5%. Why is he around?

[Mudboy Slim]

If Bush is only a Virginny "lean", this poll's off ten points in Kerry's favor...Bush wins the Old Dominion by 12-15 points...GUARANTEED!!

FReegards...MUD

[wardaddy]

and Mississippi too...it is so safe for Bush it's not funny.

[codercpc]

Thanks so much, this is what I was thinking of.

I will look it over tomorrow. Thanks for your help!!!!

[Two-Bits]

Hi, Please take a moment tomorrow and call the President or send an email today to let him know we, the American people back him. all the way. Also, please ask one person to do the same and ask them to ask another, hopefully, God willing, we will flood the switchboard with calls and faxes like they have never seem. This is one way we can take it direct to the President without marching to the White House and were it can not be misled by the media or their silly polls..... Please call or email to: Comments: 202-456-1111 Switchboard: 202-456-1414 FAX: 202-456-2461 E-Mail President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov
God Bless you all and for those that have responded already, thank you.