Battleground poll gives Bush's 2004 odds a boost

Washington Times ^ | 9/26/03 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[kattracks]

President Bush is in a stronger position to win re-election than his falling job-approval rating suggests, a bipartisan poll finds.

Mr. Bush's job-performance rating is higher than both his father's at this point of his presidency in 1991 and President Clinton's at a comparable time in his first term, said Republican pollster Ed Goeas and Democrat Celinda Lake.

[MJY1288]

If the democrats continue with their baseless attacks on the President over the Iraq War, they will not win a single state in 2004

[MEG33]

Interesting..He's hanging in there.It may be close but I believe he'll win.

[HitmanLV]

Don't bet on it. The Dems will win many of the Gore states they won in 2000, and only lose a few of them.

Dubya wins 321-350 EVs, but not much more.

[Mo1]

Mr. Goeas countered that the percentage of Republicans who strongly support Mr. Bush is higher than the percentage of Democrats who strongly support an alternative. Therefore, he said, more Republicans than Democrats are likely to turn out for the 2004 election.

Hmmmm .. that is interesting

[MJY1288]

Keep in mind, These Polls that are conducted rely upon those who agree to participate. Most people hang the phone up or toss the survey in the trash. Only the most aggrivated are willing to sit through one of these polls and it's the left who is angry right now, they see their grip on power going away and they are eager to participate in these polls. From every poll I have seen on the political make up of this country, 70% are moderates and 30% are to the right or the left of center. I think GWB has the support of large majority of that 70%. Ronald Reagan was polling at levels far lower than GWB at this point in their first term, Clinton was also at levels far below GWB's at this point as well.

GHWB was hurt by the Perot factor and that was the only reason why Bill Clinton won in 1992. GWB will not have to deal with a Ross Perot and I think GWB will win in a landslide in 2004

[HitmanLV]

I agree Dubya will win, but how do you figure a landslide?

How does he win the west coast? Howe about Illinois-Michigan? How about almost every square inch of the Northeast, down to Jersey?

For a Republican to carry many of these states, Duby wouldhave to have a national 10% spread in the popular vote, and in some cases (Cali and NY, for example) more than that.

I think Dubya will win 325-350 EVs, but I don't see where many more EVs will come from? If you think he will take Illionis, NY, and California, for example, you would just be wrong.

[Rate_Determining_Step]

West coast? Ask Tom (aka H. Ross) McClintock...

[HitmanLV]

McClintock or not, Bush isn't winning California.

Arnold winning is good nationally in several ways, but this is my favorite: Provided he wins, remains popular, and the impression is that the state is improving under his watch, he can stump for Dubya and help make Cali compeditive.

Unfortunately, it won't be enouh to win. But it will be enough to absorb Dem funding they could be spending in other states. If we make them work a bit for Cali, that's a good thing with a national benefit.

[Rate_Determining_Step]

McClintock or not, Bush isn't winning California. Things are that bad for Republicans in CA? Did GHW Bush carry California in 92?

If so, Tom should get out now. The climate isn't right. However, people can get in the habit of voting Republican. It happened in the South.

It also works the other way. Lesson learned: Losing is not an option.

[Lily4Jesus]

I agree with you GWB will win in a landslide in 2004. It has been decreed and it shall be established. HE who started a good thing shall be able to completed in Jesus Name, amen!

[HitmanLV]

I agree. I did a quick mathematical model, based on the 2000 election results, the national figures, and the California state vote figures.

Based on that (and it's all speculation but it is just to show what a tough road Cali is in the EC), Bush would have to increase his national popular vote total 13% over what he got in 2000 (winning about 54% of the national popular vote, instead of the 48% that he won in 2000), and the Dem would have to drop that same 13% of the national popular vote (winning only 42% of the national popular vote, instead of the 48% or so Gore won) in order to raise the national tide to 54%-42%, which would be enough to raise the tide in California enough and win, by even then by under 1%.

In this case, all else being equal (which it isn't), Bush would win California in a sqeaker by under 1% (49%-48%), and then by only about 62,000 votes.

Bush lost California in 2000 by 1,293,774, losing the popular vote in Cali 56%-43%.

Cali was never in the cards - for now, Cali is lost. But making Cali more of a race (even 52-47 within the state) forces the Dems to use resources to keep Cali. We get the benefit in other states nationwide.

This +13% would naturally raise the tide elsewhere in the nation and would probably win Bush other states he lost in 2000, particularly Illinois (still needs a 13% increase to 54%-42% nationally to eek out a 29,493 win) & Michigan (which would need only a 6% increase to a 51%-45% national spread to eek out a win by only 30,134 votes).

The 13% increase nationally (which isn't going to happen anyway) would still lose NY! Based on this pattern, Bush has to increase his national numbers by 27% (and the Dem would have to decrease by the same 27%) to an impossible national margin of 62%-35% in order to eek out a 46%-46% popular vote win in NY State, and carry the state by only 53,666 votes!

The good news: Bush I think will win all the states he won in 2000, PLUS New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and maybe Oregon (a +1% difference in the national vote in favor of Bush would mean a 50-49 Bush win in OR, winning by 7500 votes or so), and maybe Penn (a 5% difference in favor of Bush, a national spread of 50-46, should carry Penn by about 33,00 votes), and a +6% would even carry Michigan, as I said.

A +6% difference, a 51%-45% national spread for Bush is realistic and possible, but far from sure, and while it sounds like a blowout, but I am afraid based on 2000 patterns, it would only add up to about 350-375 electoral votes - enough to win but a disapointment for those looking for Reagan style blowout. Too many states are out of reach, and no way Bush is going to pull ahead nationally by much more than 51-45, sorry.

Of course, this is only meant to show how difficult it will be to carry some states. It's all speculation. But keep this phenomena in mind when you see national figures: a 51-45 spread nationally in favor of Dubya doesn't bring home Cali, NY, Illinois, and much of the Northeast.

[HitmanLV]

I'll concede nothing, but I am realistic.

Look at the detailed analysis I just did in this thread. A 50 state sweep will not happen, sorry.

In 2000, Bush barely campaigned in NY for example, a state he lost almost 2-1. Campaigning there more would have closed that gap, but not by much, and not enough to win.

You are looking at a 2004 election EV tally of about 350, or so, maybe as little as 321. +6 percent nationally to 51-45 can be done, but even that won't raise the tide enough to win Cali and NY, IL, and other pockets of liberalism in the northeast.

[HitmanLV]

I'm all for crushing the Dems, but that Kerry stat probably has more to do with Kerry than it does about Bush.

Come election day, the usual suspects will line up, do what they do best, and vote for the Dem. There will be more of us, and we will win by a wider margin, but I can not imagine taking states like Cali & NY. There is not enough support for Dubya in those states, when it comes to the election booth.

No Republican was won Cali since 1988. No Republican has won NY since 1984. No Republican will win either in 2004, sorry.

We will win, but the EV tally will be closer to 350 than 535 - no doubt in my mind.

[tkathy]

"From every poll I have seen on the political make up of this country, 70% are moderates and 30% are to the right or the left of center. "

The country is becoming more moderate and tolerant, and young people are becoming more moderate and tolerant. IMHO, The Reps will rule for decades if they become more moderate and tolerant. The crazies are dwindling on both the left and the right.

[Coop]

I agree Dubya will win, but how do you figure a landslide?

I'm not necessarily predicting a landslide or anything, but here's some food for thought I posted as a separte thread yesterday.

The President's Re-election Prospects Have Nearly Disappeared

Why?

-We’re engaged in a long-term war against an enigmatic enemy, with no end in sight

-American military members are suffering and dying at the hands of terrorists on foreign soil

-The media makes a concerted effort to only portray the President in a negative light

-The President’s job approval numbers are well under 60%, with just over a year left until the election

-The President scores well under 50% on polls asking if he should be re-elected

-The economy is struggling to emerge from a recent recession

-Defense spending is way up

-Budget deficits are a serious concern

-National unemployment is over 6%

-The Democrats have assembled a formidable, diverse group of contenders that criticize the President constantly, including one quote: "If [our soldiers] were sent there to fight, they are too few. If they were sent there to die, they are too many."
--------------------

Although it could most certainly apply today, the above was written from a 1983 perspective. The fella running for re-election in 1984 did pretty okay that year. :-)

[Coop]

:Bush lost California in 2000 by 1,293,774, losing the popular vote in Cali 56%-43%.

While your points are well taken, this statistic simply isn't an accurate measure. Bush/Cheney were routinely within 5-6 points of Go/Lie in countless polls leading up to the election. A 5-6 point margin is still a significant loss in Cali, but it's not 1.3 mil votes. The DWI revelation certainly cost him some votes, but it was the premature Florida call that cost Bush dearly out west.

[NYC Republican]

Let me guess... You're a construction worker?