Electoral College Breakdown 2004, May 26th Update

I Wouldn't Touch It With a 10 Foot Poll

Breaking Conventional Wisdom

Democrats are feeling pretty good about their chances in the Presidential election, and not without reason. Bush's approval ratings have famously descended to the low 40s, and as Susan Estrich and various other Democrats have been gleefully pointing out, no incumbent since the advent of polling has been re-elected with approval numbers this low, this late. Pollster John Zogby has declared that the race is Kerry's to lose. James Carville has written that it is over. Dick Morris suggests that Bush is in serious, serious trouble. Sure the race is close now, pretty much everyone admits, but the developing common perception is that it may not remain so for very long (a view that I have stated as my own, although I remain unconvinced over the direction it will break). The candidates' behavior, however, tells a different story.

At this stage in 2000, it looked as if the election was Bush's to lose. He led comfortably in the state-by-state polling, and had a popular vote lead according to matchup polls as well. Bush acted as if he believed his position was as strong as it appeared. The fact that his confidence was somewhat misplaced does little to change the fact that when a candidate believes he is destined to win, he starts to try to set himself up for success in governing. His campaign was spending on advertising on states which were considered to be strongly Democratic, such as California, hoping to score a decisive mandate in the election. When it came to choosing a running mate, he eschewed selecting someone who could help swing a particular state's electoral votes his direction, instead choosing to pick someone he felt would help him govern.

While Senator Kerry's advisors and spokespeople are talking extreme confidence (claiming that the election is his to lose, for example), some of his recent behaviors suggest that he does not believe the hype. One such indicator is his running mate selection process. Kerry's campaign has made overtures to Republicans such as John McCain and Chuck Hagel. It strikes me that a candidate who believes he is going to win would be looking within his own party, rather than looking for someone who could shake up the dynamics of the race. Beyond the flirtations with certain Republicans, other names on Kerry's reported short-list include John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, Tom Vilsack, Bob Graham, Bill Nelson, Jeanne Shaheen, and Bill Richardson. With the exception of Edwards, each one of these possibilities comes from a recognized swing state, and a recent poll shows that Edwards could make it a race in North Carolina. The makeup of the names being floated by Kerry suggests that he is not convinced he is going to win without help.

By comparison, President Bush has so far resisted any temptation to bolster his ticket by replacing Dick Cheney, a switch that could be made without too much difficulty with an explanation that health concerns necessitated the move. If the President felt sure that he was heading towards defeat unless he shook things up, then odds are he would make such a move.

Kerry is also still trying to be all things to all people. As the Washington Post reports, a Kerry aide briefed reporters that Kerry told Ralph Nader "Don't judge me by the people who preceded me. You may have had a disagreement with Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or the Democrat leadership in Congress... but that's not me. I have fought with you, I have been with you on a range of issues." That is compared to earlier this year, when Kerry included in a speech that "If you liked what Bill Clinton gave you in eight years, you'll love what John Kerry will give you in the first four." He assures gay rights activists in private that he is committed to their issues, but his advisors say, according to the Washington Post, that "a strong public defense of gay marriage could undermine the candidate's appeal in culturally conservative states." This is similar to his approach to the pre-war debate on Iraq, where he took both sides on the issue, and on the funding for the war, where he voted for it before he voted against it. The essence of this approach is getting different groups to believe different things about what his intentions are, which is inherently a campaign tactic and not an approach one takes when preparing to govern. In each case where he is trying to be different things to different groups, one of the groups will end up disappointed in his governance should he be elected; one does not set up groups for alienation in this regard unless one thinks it may be necessary in order to win the office. The fact that he is continuing this style of campaigning suggests he has yet to decide that he can safely switch to a mode where he is preparing to govern.

Another indication is in his decision to play footloose and fancy-free with campaign finance law, declaring that he is not going to let his campaign be put at a disadvantage because of legal technicalities such as accepting his nomination when nominated. Again, this is the action of a candidate who believes he is in a dogfight, not the action of a candidate who is expecting to win handily and therefore does not need to take chances.

None of this is to say that his position is not strong; it is. While for well over a year the Bush campaign had been trying to set expectations low, saying that they expected to be tied or slightly behind at this point, it is hard to imagine that was anything more than trying to set it up so that he could be exceeding expectations by now. Given the strong improvement in the economy over the past several months, it has to be very disappointing to Karl Rove and company to not have opened a bit of a lead (and if Zogby Interactive is to be believed, fallen considerably behind, although his battleground poll results are disputed by the results from Gallup, Rasmussen and Fox Opinion Dynamics).

Still, those who are expecting a Kerry blowout at this point are getting ahead of themselves, as are those who are dismissing Bush's chances in states where he is currently polling surprisingly strongly. Which brings me once again to my favorite state of this campaign season. The Columbia Journalism Review writes that New Jersey, despite polls showing it to be relatively close, should not be considered a winnable state for the Republicans.

More importantly, however, the New-Jersey-as-battleground hype ignores the fact that, in 2000, while Gore ultimately crushed Bush, early polls 2000 depicted a close race. In early May of that year, American Research Group found Gore receiving 45 percent, Bush 44 percent, and 11 percent undecided. In June 2000, a Quinnipiac poll had Gore at 41 percent, Bush 37 percent, and Nader 7 percent. That same month Mason-Dixon Polling & Research released a poll that measured Gore's support at 42 percent, Bush's at 40 percent, and Nader's at 4 percent, and a Gannett New Jersey Poll suggested a Bush victory with the Republican out dueling Gore 35 percent to 34 percent (29 percent were undecided).
Then, in August 2000, Gannet measured Bush's lead at 8 percent, before the numbers miraculously shifted in the middle of month giving Gore a 10 percent lead.
Simply stated, the early polls out of New Jersey have not proven to be accurate forecasts of the November vote. Rather, they have proven to be entirely unreliable. (This holds for non-presidential elections also. For example, in 1996, a Star-Ledger/Eagleton-Rutgers Poll administered just days before the election depicted a dead heat between the Republican candidate Dick Zimmer and the Democratic candidate Bob Torricelli at 41 percent and 42 percent, respectively. But, when the votes were tallied on Election Day, Torricelli defeated Zimmer by a ten-point margin, 53 percent to 43 percent.)

I tracked the polls for all the states in 2000, much as I am doing here. The polls told a story-- the state was close, then opened up towards Gore after the Democrat convention. The different phases of the campaign were validated by several polling companies, all getting similar results (with the occasional outlier, such as that one Gannett poll, which was obvious even at the time of its release as being one).

Will New Jersey follow the same pattern this year? It certainly could. However, I am not nearly as certain it will as the Columbia Journalism Review. People do not say they are undecided without reason (obviously, some do but I am talking about in general). People say they are undecided because they have not made up their mind. And New Jersey voters are notorious for making up their minds late, and no party has a monopoly on which way the late-breakers go. It has been race dependent.

Race	Poll Date	Poll Result	Other/Undecided %	Final Result	Difference
1992 President	11/1/92	Clinton 42, Bush 30, Perot 18	10	Clinton 43, Bush 41, Perot 16	Clinton +1, Bush +11, Perot -2
1993 Governor	10/31/93	Florio 48, Whitman 39	13	Whitman 49, Florio 48	Whitman +10, Florio +0
1994 Senate	11/6/94	Lautenberg 49, Haytaian 35	16	Lautenberg 50, Haytaian 47	Lautenberg +1, Haytaian +12
1996 Senate	11/3/96	Torricelli 42, Zimmer 41	17	Torricelli 53, Zimmer 43	Torricelli +11, Zimmer +2
1996 President	11/3/96	Clinton 45, Dole 34, Perot 7	14	Clinton 53, Dole 36, Perot	Clinton +8, Dole +2, Perot +2
1997 Governor	11/2/97	Whitman 45, McGreevey 36	19	Whitman 47, McGreevey 46	Whitman +2, McGreevey +10
2000 President	10/29/00	Gore 53, Bush 39, Nader 5	3	Gore 56, Bush 40	Gore +3, Bush +1, Nader -2
2000 Senate	10/29/00	Corzine 49, Franks 39	12	Corzine 50, Franks 47	Corzine +1, Franks +8
2001 Governor	11/4/01	McGreevey 53, Schundler 36	11	McGreevey 56, Schundler 42	McGreevey +3, Schundler +6
2002 Senate	11/3/02	Lautenberg 52, Forrester 40	8	Lautenberg 54, Forrester 44	Lautenberg +2, Forrester +4

There are a few things that can be gleaned from this chart. First, a high percentage of New Jersey voters do decide late. In all but two of these races, the percentage of voters that had not specified one of the top candidates in the poll released right before the election was in double digits. Second, the late deciders do not always go towards the Democrats. In the 1993 Governor, 1994 Senate, 2000 Senate, 2001 Governor and 2002 Senate race, the late breakers all went towards the Republicans by at least a 2-1 margin, as compared to the 1996 Senate, 1997 Governor, and 2000 Presidential race where they went to the Democrats by at last a 3-1 margin. Third, the state does tend to support Democrats although Republicans can make it close and even win if they get enough of the late breaking vote.

Another thing that jumps out on this chart is that the 2000 Presidential race was not like the others; where the fewest undecideds in the other races was just under 10 points, for the Bush/Gore/Nader contest there were only 3%. While they remained undecided for the Senate race that year (and broke towards Republican Bob Franks) they had decided earlier in the Presidential race that they were going to go with Vice President Gore. As the Columbia Journalism Review noted, the decision point seemed to be sometime around mid-August. Prior to that, the state was close and could have gone either way. The Columbia Journalism Review sarcastically declared this shift to be 'miraculous'. But was it? There is an obvious reason why this shift occurred and why it occurred when it did: on August 8th, Gore selected Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman to be his running mate. As anyone familiar with the New York City media market can attest, Lieberman is a tri-state favorite.

In 2004, it is unlikely that Senator Kerry is going to try for a little Joe-mentum, so those expecting a similar shift in Jersey sentiment after the Democrat convention are bound to be disappointed. Instead, the more probable way the race in New Jersey is going to play out is that the race will remain closer than people expect, with a high percentage of New Jerseyites refusing to tip their hand as to which way they will go. In order to win the state, Bush will have to capture these coy voters by a significant margin-- a daunting task, and one which he should not be expected to accomplish, but a task that is not as impossible as conventional wisdom suggests. After all, in a year where Democrats nationwide were scoring tremendous success in the Senate, and in a year where Gore/Lieberman were demolishing Bush/Cheney, nondescript Bob Franks came within merely 3% of pulling it off.

One thing that is noticeable from the above chart is that three of the biggest captures of the late deciders came when an incumbent was involved (Whitman's late charge against Florio, Hayatian's surge against Lautenberg, and McGreevey's run at Whitman). This meshes with a bit of polling conventional wisdom, namely that the late deciding vote generally runs against the incumbent. Dick Morris has been saying of late that this is yet another reason to consider Bush to be in very deep trouble, since in most states he is polling below 50%. But does that hold true on the Presidential level? Within New Jersey, the answer is no. In 1992, the incumbent George H.W. Bush did 11 points better than the final poll, suggesting he captured nearly all of the late deciders. In 1996, Clinton took more of them by a 4-1 ratio over Dole.

The "challengers take the undecideds" theorem has not held true on the national level, either, as the following table shows (all data from Gallup).

Year	Race	1 Month Out	Next To Last Poll	Result	Verdict
1936	Incumbent FDR vs. Landon	FDR 51, Landon 44	FDR 54, Landon 43	FDR 61, Landon 37	Broke towards incumbent.
1940	Incumbent FDR vs. Willkie	FDR 51, Willkie 42	FDR 51, Willkie 42	FDR 55, Willkie 45	Broke evenly.
1944	Incumbent FDR vs. Dewey	FDR 47, Dewey 45	FDR 47, Dewey 45	FDR 53, Dewey 46	Broke towards incumbent.
1948	Incumbent Truman vs. Dewey	Dewey 46, Truman 40	Dewey 50, Truman 45	Truman 50, Dewey 45	Broke towards the incumbent.
1952	No incumbents. Democrats the incumbent party. Ike vs. Stevenson	Ike 51, Stevenson 38	Ike 48, Stevenson 39	Ike 55, Stevenson 44	Broke evenly.
1956	Incumbent Ike vs. Stevenson	Ike 51, Stevenson 41	Ike 51, Stevenson 41	Ike 57, Stevenson 42	Broke towards incumbent.
1960	No incumbent President. Incumbent VP Nixon vs. Kennedy	Kennedy 49, Nixon 45	Kennedy 49, Nixon 45	Kennedy 50, Nixon 50	Broke for incumbent VP.
1964	Incumbent LBJ vs. Goldwater	LBJ 64, Goldwater 29	LBJ 64, Goldwater 29	LBJ 61, Goldwater 38	Broke towards challenger.
1968	No incumbents. Democrats the incumbent party. Humphrey vs. Nixon	Nixon 43, Humphrey 31	Nixon 44, Humphrey 36	Nixon 43, Humphrey 43	Broke towards incumbent party.
1972	Incumbent Nixon vs. McGovern	Nixon 60, McGovern 34	Nixon 59, McGovern 36	Nixon 61, McGovern 38	Broke evenly.
1976	Incumbent Ford vs. Carter	Carter 47, Ford 41	Carter 48, Ford 44	Carter 50, Ford 48	Slight break towards incumbent.
1980	Incumbent Carter vs. Reagan	Carter 47, Reagan 39	Carter 47, Reagan 39	Reagan 51, Carter 41	Broke strongly towards challenger. So did some of the decideds.
1984	Incumbent Reagan vs. Mondale	Reagan 58, Mondale 38	Reagan 56, Mondale 39	Reagan 59, Mondale 41	Broke evenly.
1988	No incumbent President. Incumbent VP Bush vs. Dukakis	Bush 49, Dukakis 43	Bush 53, Dukakis 39	Bush 53, Dukakis 46	Broke evenly from a month out. Broke slightly towards challenger from the 2nd to last poll.
1992	Incumbent Bush vs. Clinton	Clinton 47, Bush 29	Clinton 43, Bush 36	Clinton 43, Bush 38	Broke towards incumbent.
1996	Incumbent Clinton vs. Dole	Clinton 48, Dole 39	Clinton 52, Dole 41	Clinton 49, Dole 41	Broke evenly.
2000	No incumbent President. Incumbent VP Gore vs. Bush	Bush 48, Gore 43	Bush 47, Gore 45	Gore 48, Bush 48	Broke towards incumbent VP.

With only three exceptions, the incumbent party's candidate did at least as well as the challenger with the late breaking vote, and usually did a lot better. The three exceptions? Barry Goldwater and Mike Dukakis each made small gains while remaining considerably behind in an impending crushing defeat. Ronald Reagan proved to be the exception to every rule, winning not only the undecideds but also taking away considerable support from Jimmy Carter during the last weeks of the 1980 election.

Despite the rhetoric being floated by the Carvilles and Zogbys of the world, the race has not been decided, not even in states such as New Jersey. This is not news to either campaign. Both continue to behave as if there is a battle royale engaged, and they are correct in that assumption. For while all three incumbents whose approval ratings were under 50 lost, other aspects of those races do not match up with the current race.

In all three of those races, the incumbent's support level in Gallup's matchup poll had dropped into, and stayed in, the 30s by June and the low 30s or below by July. George W. Bush's lowest reading in this measure so far was 43 back in February, and he has not been below 47 since a month later.
In 1976, Ford had been trailing in the Gallup surveys by a minimum of 6 points from late April on through late September. George W. Bush has not trailed Kerry by more than 2 in the Gallup survey since after the Democrat primaries, and has led several times by up to 5 points.
Jimmy Carter's top level in Gallup's matchup polls in 1980 from March through late September was 41%. Bush has yet to drop to that point.
By July, Clinton was leading by over 20%. We have yet to get to that month so time will tell, but in May of that year Ross Perot had yet to temporarily drop out of the race, and Bush had 19% fewer points than his opponents did together.

Bush is not sitting pretty, but he is not in as dire a position as any of the three defeated incumbents since World War II. And if he does fall into the high 30s in Gallup's horserace question, he can always look to his dad, who inhabited those nether regions for a few months against Mike Dukakis before triumphing.

Over a month ago, I stated my view that the coming election was likely to end up not being close with regards to the electoral college-- but I had no idea which way it would go. My opinion is unchanged. All it takes is a quick look at the map and one can see how easy it would be for either man to collect an electoral landslide. Kerry would just need to have Zogby Interactive's numbers be real while holding serve elsewhere. And Bush would just need to have SurveyUSA be right in California and then move there and NJ by just a point or two. Oddly, while unlikely, both could happen concurrently which would make for one of the most surprising campaigns ever-- and a very tight race yet again.

This Week's Polling Updates Overview

Oh, and Zogby released a whole bunch of polls that even he said are not representative, showing Kerry winning mostly everywhere.

Other than that, it was a relatively quiet week for the ECB. Of all those moves and polls, none struck me as noteworthy except for one: Pennsylvania. If in fact Kerry has moved ahead there, then it would put him in a much stronger position, and Bush's margins for error become quite narrow. ECB has the tally standing at Bush 211, Kerry 198 but for the first time this election season my sense of things is that Kerry actually has the overall advantage. This is reflected with his 255-227 lead with tossups included (a measure I usually do not pay much attention to), his 262-177 lead in ECB Classic (229-196 without Zogby Interactive), and his 320-218 ECB Classic with tossups lead (Bush does lead 277-255 sans Zogby there). The current calculated popular result is 45.4% for Bush, 44.2% for Kerry. As for the battlegrounds:

State	2000 Result	Media Battleground	Current Status
Florida	Bush +0.01	Yes	Tossup
New Mexico	Gore +0.06	Yes	Tossup
Wisconsin	Gore +0.2	Yes	Kerry, Slight
Iowa	Gore +0.3	Yes	Kerry, Slight
Oregon	Gore +0.4	Yes	Kerry, Slight
New Hampshire	Bush +1	Yes	Kerry, Slight
Minnesota	Gore +2	Yes	Kerry, Lean
Ohio	Bush +4	Yes	Kerry, Lean
Nevada	Bush +4	Yes	Bush, Lean
Pennsylvania	Gore +4	Yes	Kerry, Slight
Michigan	Gore +5	Yes	Tossup
Arkansas	Bush +5	Yes	Bush, Slight
Arizona	Bush +6	Yes	Bush, Slight
West Virginia	Bush +6	Yes	Bush, Lean
New Jersey	Gore +16	No	Kerry, Slight

	F		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.

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
4/20/04	Rasmussen	Link	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	39%	Kerry	51%	Kerry +12
5/4/04	Rutgers / Eagleton	Link	643 RV	4%	Bush	37%	Kerry	43%	Kerry +6
5/16/04	Quinnipiac	Link	1,129 RV, Nader not an option	2.9%	Bush	44%	Kerry	47%	Kerry +3
5/16/04	Quinnipiac	Link	1,129 RV, Nader an option	2.9%	Bush	43%	Kerry	46%	Kerry +3

Punditry: Slight Advantage for Kerry. Those who read ECB regularly were the first to know that New Jersey was showing signs of being different this year.

The numbers here are just plain weird. Kerry has a net negative unfavorability rating of -1, and only 13% say they haven't heard enough to form an opinion, but he has only a 27% favorability rating. I have never seen it where people say they know a candidate but still cannot decide if they approve or not.

Bush's numbers are no less strange. He has a net negative approval rating of -8 (44-52), but he gets the vote of almost every single person who approves of him. There simply is not a lot of room for growth there.

The combination of numbers here, along with a lack of Senate races and no Gubernatorial rating, hints that this could be a low turnout race in New Jersey.

	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.

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
4/21/04	American Research Group	Link	600 LV	4%	Bush	46%	Kerry	45%	Bush +1
5/9/04	Hamilton, Beattie and Staff (D)	Link	1000 LV	3%	Bush	47%	Kerry	50%	Kerry +3
5/19/04	American Research Group	Link	600 LV	4%	Bush	47%	Kerry	46%	Bush +1

Punditry: Florida remains a Tossup. Kerry leads, according to ARG, 47-40% among voters not affiliated with a major party, while Bush runs stronger among Republicans than Kerry does against Democrats. This difference in intraparty support is a trend I am starting to notice among several states (see also New Jersey). This has a good news/bad news dichotomy to it-- something for both parties to cheer and fear.

	F		Pennsylvania
Electoral Votes: 21
2000 Result
Gore 51%
Bush 46%

Background: Democrats have won this state 6 of the last 10 elections, with the first of Clinton's wins being attributable to Ross Perot being on the ballot (19%). Typically, the races in the Keystone state have been close. Pennsylvania started as leaning Bush last time, but has drifted to where it has a slight advantage for the Democrats. Republicans hold a 12-7 advantage in the numbers of Representatives, and hold both Senate seats. They also hold both chambers of the state legislature. The Democrats hold the major executive branch positions except for Attorney General, and have a significant registration advantage (48%-42%).

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican	Democrat	Margin
5/13/03	Quinnipiac	Link	952 RV	3.2%	Bush	56%	Kerry	34%	Bush +22
10/9/03	Quinnipiac	Link	1,116 RV	3%	Bush	50%	Kerry	43%	Bush +7
11/23/03	Muhlenberg College	Link	430 RV	4.7%	Bush	47%	Kerry	40%	Bush +7
12/14/03	Quinnipiac	Link	1,092 RV	3%	Bush	50%	Kerry	42%	Bush +8
2/18/04	Quinnipiac	Ling	1,356 RV	2.7%	Bush	45%	Kerry	50%	Dem +5
2/22/04	Keystone Poll	Link	392 RV	4.9%	Bush	46%	Kerry	47%	Dem +1
3/?/04	Muhlenberg College	Link	RV	?%	Bush	?%	Kerry	?%	Push
3/3/04	Pennsylvania Public Mind	Link	1750 Adults	2.4%	Bush	45%	Kerry	47%	Kerry +2
3/11/04	Survey USA	Link	802 RV	3.5%	Bush	47%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +2
3/15/04	Qunnipiac	Link	1,022 RV (Nader not given as an option)	3	Bush	44%	Kerry	45%	Kerry +1
3/15/04	Qunnipiac	Link	1,022 RV (Nader given as an option)	3%	Bush	44%	Kerry	40%	Bush +4
3/16/04	Rasmussen	Link	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	44%	Kerry	45%	Kerry +1
3/29/04	Keystone Poll	Link	565 RV	4.1%	Bush	46%	Kerry	40%	Bush +6
4/19/04	Quinnipiac	Link	769 RV, Nader not an option	3.5%	Bush	46%	Kerry	42%	Bush +4
4/19/04	Quinnipiac	Link	769 RV, Nader an option	3.5%	Bush	45%	Kerry	39%	Bush +6
4/25/04	Pew Research	Link	867 RV	4%	Bush	42%	Kerry	42%	Push
5/3/04	Bennett, Petts, And Blumenthal (D)	Link	LV	4%	Bush	43%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +6
5/14/04	Muhlenberg College	Link	400 RV	5%	Bush	43%	Kerry	48%	Kerry +5

Punditry: Very similar results to the partisan Democrat poll, so they validate each other. During the timeframe of this poll, the Rasmussen premium tracking poll of MI/PA/OH was showing that Kerry had been doing well in that three state region, again providing a validation (those numbers subsequently have moved closer to equilibrium). This result is right on the border between lean and slight, and an argument could be made either way. The arguments for leaning Kerry are that there are three polls in the time period (Muhlenberg's, a portion of the Rasmussen OH/MI/PA tracking, and the partisan Bennett poll) showing Kerry leading by about 1 spread of the MoE. The arguments for slight Kerry are that only one of those was a complete non-partisan Pennsylvania poll, the preceding polls showed Bush ahead or tied, and the OH/MI/PA tracking numbers did not maintain their position. When in doubt, call it a horserace and if it is not we will know soon enough and move it further. Slight Advantage for Kerry.

A nit to pick: the article linked correctly reports that given the sample size, the calculated MoE is 4.9%, but fails to consider that when the numbers are rounded off to the nearest percent, the MoE must be as well- the significant digits should match. And a further note, the article mentions a March Muhlenberg poll I did not have, showing a dead heat. I still was unable to find any details about that poll, but I did add it to my chart.

	F		Indiana
Electoral Votes: 11
2000 Result
Bush 57%
Gore 41%

Background: This is a Republican state. While LBJ did beat Goldwater, you have to go back to

Franklin Roosevelt's second election to find another instance of the Democrats carrying the state. With

significant help from Perot, Clinton twice got within 6-7%, but beyond that the closest it has been is when

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican	Democrat	Margin
2/15/04	SurveyUSA	Link	525 RV	4.2%	Bush	51%	Unnamed Democrat	45%	Bush +6
3/24/04	Bellwether Poll	Link	600 LV	4.0%	Bush	52%	Kerry	37%	Bush +15
5/19/04	Selzer & Co.	Link	540 LV	4%	Bush	54%	Kerry	33%	Bush +21

Punditry: That popping sound you heard was Evan Bayh's VP chances exploding; with numbers like

this he could not help bring Indiana to Kerry. I doubt it will end up being a 20 point race in the end.

However, this poll confirms to me that there is almost no chance that Indiana will flip, and if it does we

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

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
4/1/04	Insider Advantage	Link	400 Residents	5%	Bush	47%	Kerry	35%	Bush +12
5/20/04	Wilson Research	Link	500 RV	4%	Bush	53%	Kerry	34%	Bush +19

Punditry: Just when it looked like there was a slight chance that Oklahoma could get interesting with regards to the Presidential race, it looks to have opened back up. Oklahomans feel, 48% to 33%, that things are generally on the right track in their state. Strong Advantage for Bush.

	South Dakota
Electoral Votes: 3
2000 Result
Bush 60%
Gore 38%

Background: Another state that only went for the Democrats with Johnson since FDR's second campaign. It has occasionally been close.

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican	Democrat	Margin
2/5/03	Mason-Dixon	NA	LV	3.5%	Bush	50%	Unnamed Democrat	39%	Bush +11
5/12/04	Mason-Dixon	Link	625 LV	4%	Bush	51%	Kerry	35%	Bush +16
5/21/04	Zogby	Link	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	50.1%	Kerry	34.8%	Bush +15.3 (no Nader)

Punditry: South Dakota is going to be a very interesting state to watch in November, but not because of the Presidential race. Bush is going to handily carry the state. Strong Advantage for Bush. However, there will be a very tight Senate race where Minority Leader Daschle is at risk (he leads John Thune by only two points in the same Mason-Dixon poll) and a tight House race (where Herseth has a slim lead over Diedrich). (No update to comment with the addition of the Zogby poll).

	California
Electoral Votes: 55
2000 Result
Gore 53%
Bush 42%

Background: On a three election streak for the Democrats, California has a reputation as a liberal bastion. While Gore did handle Bush easily in 2000, the fact is that the reputation may not fit the data on the Presidential level. Only three candidates have broken 53% in California since the 1964 landslide. Al Gore last time, homestate icon Ronald Reagan in his re-election campaign but not his first election, and Richard Nixon in his re-election campaign but not his first successful Presidential campaign.

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican	Democrat	Margin
8/16/03	Field	NA	RV	4%	Bush	42%	Unnamed Democrat	47%	Dem +5
8/16/03	Public Policy Institute	NA	LV	3%	Bush	40%	Unnamed Democrat	45%	Dem +5
1/3/04	Public Policy Institute	Link	LV	3%	Bush	45%	Unnamed Democrat	45%	Tied
1/13/04	Field	NA	RV	3.4%	Bush	46%	Unnamed Democrat	47%	Dem +1
1/18/04	Rasmussen	NA	LV	4%	Bush	41%	Unnamed Democrat	46%	Dem +5
2/13/04	Knowledge Networks	Link	RV	4.1%	Bush	38%	Kerry	42%	Dem +4
2/16/04	Public Policy Institute	Link	1,103 LV	3%	Bush	37%	Kerry	54%	Dem +17
2/22/04	LA Times	Link	1,521 RV	3%	Bush	40%	Kerry	53%	Dem +13
2/27/04	Knowledge Networks	Link	505 RV	3.8%	Bush	38%	Kerry	43%	Kerry +5
3/11/04	Rasmussen	Link	455 LV	5%	Bush	44%	Kerry	53%	Kerry +9
4/17/04	Rasmussen	Link	502 LV	5%	Bush	40%	Kerry	51%	Kerry +11
4/21/04	L.A. Times	Link	1,265 LV, Nader an option	3%	Bush	39%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +10
4/21/04	L.A. Times	Link	1,265 LV, Nader not an option	3%	Bush	41%	Kerry	53%	Kerry +12
5/6/04	SurveyUSA	Link	635 LV	4%	Bush	45%	Kerry	46%	Kerry +1
5/24/04	Field	Link	647 RV, Nader not an option	4%	Bush	40%	Kerry	55%	Kerry +15
5/24/04	Field	Link	647 RV, Nader an option	4%	Bush	39%	Kerry	51%	Kerry +12

Punditry: One of these polls is not like the others. Although SurveyUSA has a good record for accuracy, I suspect that most of the polls coming out in California over the next several weeks will be closer to this one than the previous one. Field Polls normally run a few points favorable for the Democrats, so if I had to guess I'd put this race right on the cusp between Lean and Strong. Since the last two polls are contradictory, I will go with Leaning Towards Kerry.

Kerry E		F Bush
Safe	Strong	Lean	Slight	Tossup	Slight	Lean	Strong	Safe
DC (3)	DE (3)	MD (10) K48-B43 3/24/04	IA (7) K47-B46 4/21/04	NM (5) B46-K45 4/1/04	AR (6) B45-K45 5/2/04	VA (13) B48-WC33 12/3/03	SC (8) B52-UD36 7/28/03	AK (3)
HI (4)	ME (4) K51-B38 3/4/04	MN (10) K50-B38 4/2/04	NH (4) K49-B45 4/26/04	OR (7) K50-B47 B44-K39 5/10/04	AZ (10) B46-K42 5/4/04	GA (15) B47-UD43 2/4/04	MS (6) B49-UD29 12/22/03	ND (3)
RI (4) K53-B31 2/7/04	NY (31) K51-B32 4/22/04	WA (11) K46-B41 4/5/04	WI (10) K50-B42 B50-K38 4/28/04	MI (17) B44-K40 5/13/04	-	NV (5) B49-K38 3/17/04	KS (6) B57-K39 3/4/04	NE (5)
MA (12) K54-B32 4/5/04	CT (7) K51-B33 4/27/04	CA (55) K46-B45 5/6/04	NJ (15) K46-B43 5/16/04	FL (27) B47-K46 5/19/04	-	TN (11) B52-K41 3/22/04	LA (9) B52-K38 3/28/04	WY (3)
-	VT (3) K51-B36 5/1/04	OH (20) K49-B42 5/13/04	PA (21) K48-B43 5/12/04	-	-	MO (11) B49-K42 3/23/04	KY (8) B52-K40 5/11/04	MT (3) B52-UD27 5/16/03
-	-	IL (21) K48-B43 5/13/04	-	-	-	CO (9) B49-K44 4/14/04	OK (7) B53-K34 5/20/04	ID (4) B55-K23 3/17/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	WV (5) B49-K45 4/29/04	SD (3) B50-K35 5/21/04	UT (5) B67-K22 5/10/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	NC (15) B47-K41 5/14/04	-	AL (9) B55-K33 5/13/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	TX (34) B58-K29 5/15/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	IN (11) B54-K33 5/19/04
Totals
Kerry States	Battleground States	Bush States

23	48	127	57	56	16	84	47	80

198	129	211

Discuss ECB2004 On Free Republic

This week's quiz: "How do you know the mafia was there?" What is the answer to this question, what leads up to it, and how did it fit in with an exceptional Presidential race?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.