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?

[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.