Sabato's Crystal Ball in '04: Bush 278 Electoral Votes, Democrat 260...

Center For Politics ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

Beltway Boys Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracki had Larry Sabato on their show this weekend. He presented this projected Electoral Map for 2004. What do you think? Is he right? Sabato did say if the election were held today, Bush would probably get 330 Electoral votes. He thinks this is what it'll look like in November of '04, though. Any thoughts?

[Dan from Michigan]

I disagree with him on that one too. Only thing I almost agree with him on is Kerry.

[Vigilanteman]

I hate to agree with you, but think Sabato is playing CYA. He can pull out those maps after the election and the states he's wrong on will still be close.

Remember the short memory of the sheeple. All the Dims have to do is to continue to sabatoge the economy and blame it on Bush, in concert with a very willing lamestream media.

[Pubbie]

"Moreover, Zogby found that the "early call" of Bush cost him 1 million votes NATIONALLY. Easily, that could have by itself cost him those three states."

Also remember that, until 2002, the Republican GOTV effort had been very mediocre, while Democrat GOTV has been EXCELLENT for many decades.

But now that we learned GOTV in the 2002 election, we should be able to greatly improve our performance.

Remember a BIG chunk of the population does not vote, and even if a party only increases it's turnout by 2%, that is usually good enough to tip an election.

[Dan from Michigan]

Stop trying to analyze this like a homo sapien, and get with the simian program.

Whoops. Sorry. Where's my banana?

[puroresu]

It's the results of the 1965 Immigration Act. It was designed to change the demographics of America in a way that will slowly take us toward socialism by "third worldizing" the population.

California is the first example of what the 1965 act is doing. California was once a Republican-leaning state. It went Republican in every presidential election in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties, with the single exception of the 1964 Johnson landslide. It elected mostly Republican governors, including Ronald Reagan.

But today it is the first state of post-America. It's a virtual lock for the Demo-Rats in the electoral college. The 'Rats are locked into control of state government. Yeah, maybe Terminator Arnold would have the star power to get elected governor, but he'd just be a "moderate" Republican fluke in a leftist Demon-Rat sea.

By 2020, Texas will be another California. It will then be almost impossible to elect a Republican president. By 2050, Republicans will be down to just a handful of small or mid-sized states in the electoral college. The ten largest states will all be Democratic locks. Demographics and the 1965 Immigration act have assured us of that.

[NeoCaveman]

REELECT CONSIDER REPLACE NOT SURE
ALL 32% 33% 35% -
MEN 28% 31% 41% -
WOMEN 36% 35% 29%

On Edwards in NC. Looks like the arousal gap is alive and well

[AntiGuv]

Bush has a good chance to take NY in 04.

A good fat chance, maybe, if he takes 47 states. Bush would do better going after California and Illinois, if he wants to sink money down a rathole...

[AmericaUnited]

Sabato is a flaming idiot if he thinks Bush will only equal his 2000 results!

[AntiGuv]

I suspect Minnesota will end up on the GOP side as well (along with Iowa & perhaps Wisconsin). Minnesota's on the move & 2002 underscored that trend loud & clear.

[AmericaUnited]

Let me again state for the record: SABATO IS CLUELESS!!!

[Pubbie]

"Demographics and the 1965 Immigration act have assured us of that."

3 words - Eastern European Immigration.

I'm Russian-American, and many Russian immigrants I speak to can't believe that you don't raise the East European Immigration rate because, Russians (Non-Jewish) vote 80% Republican, Romanians vote 75% Republican, Ukranians 75% Republican.

But instead you're allowing yourselves to be overun by 3rd worlders.

It's amazing!

[AntiGuv]

Except Gephardt picks up WV and Kerry picks up NH, according to Sabato.

[deport]

Some of the repeat winners going backwards a few cycles...

• 1992 - Clinton .. 49.2% pop.... 379 EC

• 1984 - Reagan .. 58.8% pop.... 525 EC

• 1972 - Nixon .. 60.3% pop.... 520 EC

• 1956 - Eishenhower .. 57.6% pop.... 457 EC

• 1944 - Roosevelt .. 53.3% pop..... 432 EC

So history tells us that if the President is reelected it's done with a fairly large margin.... So if Sabato is correct in his analysis then I'd say President Bush will lose.... But I don't think Sabato is correct...

[AntiGuv]

The latest NY poll had Bush & Hillary tied at 47% apiece. By November '04, Hillary would have at least 55% in New York.

[Torie]

OK, thanks. Kerry won't pick up NH however. And Graham and Edwards are going to lose Minnesota (in fact all the Dems will lose Minnesota in a tight race), as well as Wisconsin, Iowa, and Oregon, and maybe Washington.

[Dave S]

Sabato has Bush LOSING to every one of these clowns EXCEPT for John F. Kerry, the French-looking candidate. I don't buy it.

You missed the underlying assumption stated on the map, i.e., "assumes a highly competitive election." If the popular vote was tight, then given the proclivities of the various states, he's predicting the individual states.

Sabato said if the election was held today, Bush would win 45 states and over 300 electoral votes. The assumption for the map is that the economy remains in the dumps or gets worse and that Iraq becomes a quagmire. I dont think either of those is likely to occur.

Also if Dean gets the nomination it will make McGovern contest look like that race was competitive.

[Dont Mention the War]

I believe it can happen. Politics is very fickle, particularly after what we saw in 2000. One bad debate can sink Bush (remember Ford?).

Agreed, but this also means (correctly) that Sabato's "crystal ball" is meaningless. Completely, utterly, totally useless. The election is SEVENTEEN MONTHS AWAY, and anything could happen between now and then. It's fun to speculate, but at this early stage, it means less than nothing. Sabato just threw this together to keep his name fresh in the minds of the cable news channels' TV show bookers during the off-season.

[puroresu]

There's your answer! Those groups vote 75% to 80% Republican, so there's no way we'll ever let them come in large numbers! Besides, they're white, so it would be "racist" to let them in. Why invite in a college educated East European when we can instead bring in a Somali who can't read or write? We need more Demo-Rat voters if we're ever going to reach that socialist nirvana that Hillary envisions.

[AntiGuv]

Yes. All that is correct, in my view - except for Washington. In my estimation, Washington will be razor-close even if Bush wins by a 54%-45% margin, in which case he should just eke out the win there.

[Pubbie]

"Why invite in a college educated East European when we can instead bring in a Somali who can't read or write? We need more Demo-Rat voters if we're ever going to reach that socialist nirvana that Hillary envisions."

See now your giving up already.

Don't give up 200+ years of Thriving Constitutional Democracy so easily, especially when the solution to Mexican free-loaders is so simple!

In the Eastern Orthodox theology, Despair is a sin.