Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Old College Try (2004 Election Preview)
Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball ^ | 6/23/03 | Larry J. Sabato

Posted on 06/27/2003 9:45:09 AM PDT by NYC Republican

With less than eighteen months to go before Election Day 2004, what does the Electoral College picture look like?

Wait, you say. How could even the Crystal Ball pretend to have a fix on electoral votes this far out? The answer is simple: Because of the polarization of the Red and the Blue. As we argued in Overtime: The Election 2000 Thriller, hot-button social issues such as abortion, guns, and gay rights have separated the American states into Blue "Tolerant America" an d Red "Traditional America". And this polarization gives every sign of persisting. As we showed in our new book, Midterm Madness: The 2002 El ections, the Bush and anti-Bush coalitions continue to drive current American politics.

Is it possible that a strong economic recovery, among other factors, could produce a Bush reelection landslide in 2004? Yes, but such an event would not obliterate the Red and the Blue, merely override those tendencies for one election season. Similarl y, a double-dip recession might enable the Democratic nominee to capture several Red states and the Presidency, yet the underlying split would persist.

These scenarios aside, let's assume a middle ground set-up for 2004, a soggy but not disastrous economy (no new recession) plus a mixed outlook on national security (continuing terrorist activities but no new 9/11). Further, let's propose that the Demo crats nominate one of their arguably electable candidates in the 2004 field: in alphabetical order, Edwards, Gephardt, Graham, Kerry, or Lieberman. (Dean might be included, but there's also a persuasive argument to be made that he's a Vermont Maple McGove rn.)

Which Democratic candidate does best in the Electoral College under these circumstances?

First, let's take a glance at the College outlook generically, in a Bush vs. any strong Democratic candidate in a competitive year. Figure 1 illustrates the essence of it, based on a remarkably stable 2000 pat tern that has been sustained in hundreds of state-by-state polls as well as the judgments of perceptive political observers across the country. Bush seems to have 231 solid electoral votes, and the Democrat appears to have 210 solid electoral votes. Addi ng in the leaning (hatched) electoral votes, Bush gets 47 and the Democrat 50. Remember that Bush has secured a bit of a boost from the 2000 Census; his 271 votes then now translate into 278 votes, assuming he carries again all his 2000 states. Yet the ov erall GOP margin is still thin, given historic standards.

Now, let's examine candidate-specific maps for the five Democrats named above. Keep in mind that the Crystal Ball has tried to find a plausible way for each one to win the Electoral College--irrespective of cur rent polls and soundings. Not surprisingly, there is some change, yet what is truly astonishing is how little change we see from map to map, at least at this early juncture. And some of the changes are created with a bit of a stretch. MAYBE Lieberman can carry Florida, as he almost did for Gore in 2000---at which point he can win the general election by 287 electoral votes to 258 for Bush. Graham PERHAPS can do the same, achieving the very same electoral score. If one assumes that Tar Heels will choose to follow one of their own---a very substantial leap of faith given John Edwards' current unpopularity in North Carolina---then Edwards could eke out a 275 to 263 victory in the Electoral College. Similarly, should Dick Gephardt be able to capture his home state of Missouri, despite never having stood for election on a statewide general election ballot there before, plus grab the union-rich state of West Virginia from Bush, he would squeak to a 276-to-262 electoral triumph. (Without West Virginia, Gephardt still wins by the Bush 2000 margin, 271 to 267.) The only obvious electoral addition John Kerry could make for the Democrats would be New Hampshire, but Bush would still win, 274 to 264. Kerry's best bet for the margin of victory might be to ask Bill Clin ton to spend the campaign's final month stumping in Arkansas, whose 6 electoral votes would produce exactly the 270 needed for a White House stay.

The Crystal Ball is the first to admit that we are playing electoral games without a program. Who knows in June 2003 what conditions will prevail at the time of the election in November 2004? Thus, a healthy margin of victory for either party is well w ithin the realm of the possible. We would argue, however, that the 2000 map is more than a good starting point for 2004 analysis. The 2000 state alignment is very likely to define the "parameters of the possible" for George W. Bush and his Democratic oppo nent. Unless Bush is headed for one of those rare 40-to-49-state landslides due to a favorable alignment of all the stars and planets, it is difficult to see the president winning many more electoral votes than the sum of his solid/leaning states (278) an d the blue-hatched states currently leaning Democratic (50). Bush's likely electoral ceiling, then, might well be 278+50=328. And for the Democrats, their ideal Electoral College outcome would be very unlikely to exceed 307 (260 votes in likely/leaning De mocratic states plus 47 votes in hatched-red Republican states).

This electoral analysis is but a starting point for 2004, of course. Nonetheless, the current polarization of American politics into the Blue and the Red---while certainly not as vicious as the separation of the Blue from the Gray---is historically astonishing, and somewhat reminiscent of the lingering, century-long estrangement of the North and the South after the Civil War. The Blue states are tolerant/liberal on hot-button social issues such as abortion, gun control, gay rights, and the like, while the Red states are traditional/conservative on these matters. The nation today is divided as much culturally as politically, and these divisions clearly show up on the electoral map.

Again, the Crystal Ball stresses that there are scenarios and circumstances under which 2004's map will appear dramatically different than 2000's. However, if our assumption about a competitive election is borne out, the startling conclusion is that it may not matter very much which Democrat among the five clearly electable candidates is chosen to run. Arguably, they all do about as well electorally, not because they are alike in experience and temperament but because they are captives of the Blue a nd the Red. The continuing political polarization of the 21st century may make the political party label as vital or more vital than the identity of the candidate! With apologies to David Broder, the 'party' is not over.


TOPICS: Free Republic; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrineunfold; electionpresident; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last
Very interesting reading on the 2004 Presidential election... Note- he also has Senate predictions...
1 posted on 06/27/2003 9:45:09 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican; *Bush Doctrine Unfold; Dog Gone; Grampa Dave; blam; Sabertooth; NormsRevenge; ...
Yes, very interesting!

More need to know about it!

Bush needs votes to make 2004 into a landslide!

The Military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere needs to go well and the economy needs to come back strongly.

If not , his reelection would likely fail.

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
  click here >>> Bush Doctrine Unfold <<< click here  
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)



2 posted on 06/27/2003 9:55:32 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Recall Gray Davis and then start on the other Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
....have separated the American states into Blue "Tolerant America" and Red "Traditional America".

Well above is the show stopper. Those of us who voted for Bush or those of us from states that went Bush in 2000 are by implication "Intolerant." Why would you seriously consider the views of someone with this kind of bias.

3 posted on 06/27/2003 9:56:19 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
Gun Rights continues to be the issue that, barring an economic disaster, makes the difference.
4 posted on 06/27/2003 9:57:41 AM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLS
Certainly biased. "Tolerant" and "traditional" are not opposites by definition, but this author puts them at odds.
5 posted on 06/27/2003 10:19:51 AM PDT by aardvark1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
It's going to be a blowout. This election will not be close, and Sabato is badly off on this.
6 posted on 06/27/2003 10:37:40 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
BTW, if you merely look at his map, you know Sabato is off: Bush barely lost NM, Oregon, Iowa, and WI, which alone start to move him into "blowout" territory. I think the total margin for all four was under 30,000. I know WI and NM were less than 17,000 votes total. Already, though, polls have Bush leading in Maryland, NY, and other states he lost.
7 posted on 06/27/2003 10:40:28 AM PDT by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
Reminiscent of ABC, CBS, NBC & CNN...skewed question...

His deletion of year 2000 results makes you wonder if his "Crystal Ball" is "Forked Tongue."
8 posted on 06/27/2003 10:42:25 AM PDT by spectacularbid2003 (War works)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LS
This analysis is ridiculous. The vast majority of the American public are mostly concerned with two things at this point in our history: 1) national security and 2) economic security. The Republicans hold a substantial credibility gap over the Democrats on these issues. That is why 2004 will be a blowout.

All of the social issues are mere window dressing, and only hard core, ideological voters will let these type of issues determine their votes.
9 posted on 06/27/2003 10:46:06 AM PDT by SowellRocks (Sandra Day O'Conner is a huge disappointment to this Arizonian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LS
Blue states like Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Washington could easily go to Bush in 2004. I agree with your assessment, a blowout is imminent. The Democrats know that 2004 is going to be a bloodletting, hence their "take no prisoners" campaign to protect their judicial power base.

Americans will not accept the premise that George W. Bush wants to throw Grammie into a snowbank and drag blackfolk around in chains. Bush will regain the "Reagan Democrats" of the Rustbelt, suburbs and retirement communities he didn't have in 2000.

10 posted on 06/27/2003 10:48:58 AM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
So let me get this straight... this guy's opinion is:

"Unless it's a landslide, it's going to be close".

He's certainly not going out on a limb here, is he?
11 posted on 06/27/2003 10:49:50 AM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Free Miguel and Priscilla!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Substitute "Missouri" for "Maryland". Maryland is hopeless.
12 posted on 06/27/2003 10:49:55 AM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Americans will not accept the premise that George W. Bush wants to throw Grammie into a snowbank

I'd LOVE it if Bush was able to throw "grammies" into the snow banks, serves them Hollywood idiots right! (;-)

13 posted on 06/27/2003 10:51:11 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
Blue "Tolerant America"

Tolerant? BS. Stay the #%^# out of my gun cabinent.

14 posted on 06/27/2003 10:54:38 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Say Hey! Hey! Damn Yankee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
lol. It's all "hip-hop" crap anyway.
15 posted on 06/27/2003 10:54:41 AM PDT by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
I think Jersey is almost hopeless. Missouri went to Bush last time and I think will go again(unless it's Gephardt).

Washington(Oregon's more winnable) I think is out of reach unless a Green candidate is strong. Nader/Gore combined won by 13% there.

I studied Michigan here in depth
The one major factor is the economy. If it improves, he's got it. If he takes a couple more dips, he's toast.

16 posted on 06/27/2003 11:06:55 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("Say Hey! Hey! Damn Yankee!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LS
All this speculation this early in the game is a pointless waste of time. If the economy has made a solid recovery by this time next year and we can avoid another major terrorist attack on our soil, I agree with you that it'll be a landslide. If the economy is still kind of mushy the way it is now, Sabato's analysis will probably be darn accurate. If the economy goes completely in the tank, Bush will suffer the same fate as his father. But we're still a full year away from any meaningful analysis.
17 posted on 06/27/2003 11:07:02 AM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
""The Blue states are tolerant/liberal on hot-button social issues such as abortion, gun control, gay rights, and the like, while the Red states are traditional/conservative on these matters""

I think National Security may be a bit more influential than the author gives notice to. Social issues are not always election winners. We haven't had another 9/11..and people know that Bush/Ashcroft/Ridge are responsible for keeping terrorists at bay.

The economy will see slow, but persistent growth. Bush will remain for another 4 years.
18 posted on 06/27/2003 11:09:17 AM PDT by Greenpees (Coulda Shoulda Woulda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
Search4Truth Jr. will be voting with his dad for the first time in the Presidential election. I'm so proud.
19 posted on 06/27/2003 11:13:38 AM PDT by Search4Truth (When a man lies, he murders part of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Search4Truth
Search4Truth Jr. will be voting with his dad for the first time in the Presidential election. I'm so proud.

Hopefully he'll pull the trigger for the GOP, otherwise, he'll negate your vote!

20 posted on 06/27/2003 11:21:06 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson