Electoral College Breakdown, March 7th Update

ECB2004 ^ | 3/6/04 | Dales

[Dales]

I Wouldn't Touch It With a 10 Foot Poll

Right now, most nationwide polls show a very tight race between President Bush and Senator Kerry. The media loves a horse race because it sells copies and drives ratings; the media is in full feeding frenzy mode right now over the sagging poll numbers for Bush and the soaring ratings for Kerry. There are two problems with this conventional wisdom. First, the movement of the polls that we are seeing now is nothing unusual. Second, winning electoral votes on the state level elects Presidents. A race that is close in either popular vote or in electoral vote may not be close in the other. Despite these caveats, there are some interesting numbers in recent polls that point to some of the problems facing President Bush.

The pattern repeats itself every election cycle. The incumbent, dealing with the inherent difficulties of actually having to participate in governance while the opposition candidate can paint a tapestry of vibrant possibilities, watches his poll numbers fall during the third year of the term. Every single incumbent in the last quarter century has fallen behind the challenger at some point in the period ranging from the fall of the third year to the selection of the opponent. The closest any President has come to avoiding this phenomenon was the unusually popular Ronald Reagan. Like those before and after him, he too fell behind during this timeframe; unlike most his deficit occurred earlier and he retook the lead earlier as well, leading in most polls through when Mondale officially won the right to challenge. Even then, many polls showed his lead dwindling to within the margin of error at that time. The fact that Bush has fallen behind Kerry right now is, in and of itself, not indicative of re-election woes.

As for the state elections, they are what the ECB is all about. Currently, the President holds a significant advantage. He has more electoral votes in his control, and is approaching the magic 270 plateau that would ensure his re-election. His challenger has well below 200 in his control; Mr. Kerry has his work cut out for him. But things are rarely as cut and dried as that, and this is no exception. The states which Mr. Kerry has in hand are extremely unlikely to move to the President, with the possible exception of Wisconsin. On the other hand, one could envision several of the states in the President's ledger, such as Ohio or Missouri, ending up being extremely tight. For now, though, the advantage is clearly with the incumbent.

Despite the state-by-state advantage, the media is describing a horse race, the last election was a horse race, and the last election's electoral map was similarly rosy for Bush at this stage of the race in 2000. Why has Kerry been able to close the gap? And how likely is it that he will be able to maintain his pace?

Category\Time Period	1Q03	2Q03	3Q03	4Q03 (avg)	3/1/04
Somewhat Approve	13	12	15	12	10
Lean toward Approve	10	11	10	11	10
Mixed feelings	4	2	2	3	3
Lean toward Disapprove	13	13	14	13	16
Somewhat Disapprove	5	4	5	6	4

I left off two rows here, which I will add back momentarily. These are from the AP/Ipsos-Public Affairs poll, which is as good as any to use and happens to have the benefit of being the most recent poll available to me. Looking at these numbers, one gets a sense for how static things are. Given the margin of error, the fluctuations are consistent with random variance. Over the past year, approximately the same percentage of people somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, lean one direction or the other, or have mixed feelings. There may have been some slippage of 2-3% from those who somewhat approved of the President who now lean towards disapprove, but that is not certain; one would more expect slippage in this regard to be spread among the lean towards approval, mixed feelings, and lean towards disapprove categories rather than just end up in the latter. In either case, for those without strong feelings about the President, there has been remarkably little change, and what change there has been has been relatively ambivalent.

Let's add in the two rows.

Category\Time Period	1Q03	2Q03	3Q03	4Q03 (avg)	3/1/04
Strongly Approve	34	39	31	30	28
Somewhat Approve	13	12	15	12	10
Lean toward Approve	10	11	10	11	10
Mixed feelings	4	2	2	3	3
Lean toward Disapprove	13	13	14	13	16
Somewhat Disapprove	5	4	5	6	4
Strongly Disapprove	20	18	22	25	29

The real movement here has been at the ends of the spectrum. There has been a 10-point increase in those who strongly disapprove of the President, while at the same time there has been between a 6-10 point decrease in those who strongly approve of the President. This is unusual movement.

Such movements are normally indicative of feelings of betrayal. This is unsurprising, since Kerry and the Democrats have been pounding that theme for months with their constant drumbeat of "Bush lied", "Bush sold out to special interests", and other negative populist mantras. The poll question on handling of foreign affairs and the war on terrorism is most interesting in this regard. In 2003, the percentage of those who strongly supported the President on these matters ranged from the low to mid 40s. Now, the level is 36%. The Democrats attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq and WMD are clearly resonating with people who otherwise were supportive of the President.

If the President wants to stem the bleeding, he's going to have to remake the case over the war with Iraq. If he does this, then he will recapture enough of those who he has lost to give himself a comfortable margin. If he does not, he may find that while anger is not a legitimate public policy stance, it is a force that can swing elections.

Should the Bush camp have concern at this point, or should they be very concerned? Later in the Ipsos poll, they drilled down to try to find the answer to this question. What they found is that right now, while overall they are reporting the race as being Bush 46, Kerry 45, that those who are strongly for their candidate break for Bush 37%-28%. Further, while 18% of those who said they are either going to vote for Bush or are leaning that way said they may change their mind, that is slightly more than half of the Kerry voters who say the same (34%).

While the dynamics of the movement away from the President are unusual, the magnitude and certainty of the movement is not. It would be extremely uncommon, at this point, for the challenger to not be having a honeymoon period with the voters, who let their imaginations run wild as to if he is their political knight in shining armor, or at least a more handsome prince. Puppy love fades though, at least until the convention, when love can bloom anew. That is the pattern I expect to see; Bush should drift upwards in the next few weeks, and then the race should stagnate until the Democrat convention (or until Kerry names his VP, which would cause the effect to happen sooner). At that point, the Democrats will again lead in the nationwide polls.

How big a margin will determine if they can grab the lead at the state level, which is what is really important. Gore never got a sufficient lead after his convention, and while he almost ran the table to steal the election at the end (perhaps thanks to the DWI hit piece), we should have a pretty good idea of who will be President by if Kerry can take the lead on the state-by-state level within a few weeks of the Democrat convention, and hold it for a few weeks. Or if he cannot.

Victor David Hanson recently wrote,

If White House politicos figured that many who were angered about out-of-control federal spending and immigration proposals would grumble, but not abandon Mr. Bush — given the global stakes involved after September 11, and the specter of a new alternative foreign policy far to the left of that of a Warren Christopher and Madeline Albright — then they were absolutely right.

As a conservative who is very disappointed or perhaps downright angry with the administration's spending, it pains me to say that this insight strikes me as being correct. My guess is that some of those who went from being strong backers of Bush, but now are strongly disapproving, are people who are upset with the spending and want to send a message. Hopefully this is the message Bush's camp is getting now. The base is unhappy. Control spending, and re-make the case on Iraq. If he does both, then Kerry will not likely ever be in the lead again, either nationwide or state-by-state.

---

Updated States

	Illinois
	Electoral Votes: 21
	2000 Result
	Gore 55%
	Bush 42%

Background: Before Clinton broke through, Republicans had won six straight Presidential contests in Illinois. But Clinton's win against Bush was not because of Perot; he would have carried it without him in the race. And Gore flat out spanked Bush here.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
6/9/03	Chicago Tribune	NA	RV	3.8%	Bush	38%	Unnamed Democrat	36%	Bush +2
10/20/03	Chicago Tribune	NA	700 RV	3.8%	Bush	38%	Unnamed Democrat	49%	Dem +11
1/9/04	Chicago Tribune	Link	RV	3.8%	Bush	40%	Unnamed Democrat	48%	Dem +8
3/3/04	Research 2000	Link	500 LV	5%	Bush	36%	Kerry	54%	Kerry +18

Punditry: The new poll is even more solid for Kerry, and comes close to shifting Illinois to safe. But, for now, it remains Strong Advantage for Democrats.

	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.

Polling Data:

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

Punditry: The new poll is right in line with what Knowledge Networks (also known as the Hoover Institute) previously had. So who is right? Knowledge Networks? Field? Rasmussen? The L.A. Times? Public Policy?

It is hard to say, but one thing that is pretty consistent among the various polls is that Bush's support is either right at, or slightly below, 40%. It is with Kerry (or the unnamed Democrat) where the variance is here. Odds are this is indicative of a state that wants to vote for a Democrat, but is not enamored with Kerry. An optimist would say this is an opportunity; certainly Governor Schwarzenegger will play it that way to help entice the administration into spending money on California. A pessimist would say that those voters will eventually warm up to Kerry.

I am still with the pessimists here. Although this last poll is squarely in the leaning category, I am keeping California Strong for the Democrats for now. If the next poll validates this one, then I will reclassify it.

	Connecticut
	Electoral Votes: 7
	2000 Result
	Gore 56%
	Bush 38%

Background: 3-5-3 in the last 11, with Clinton's first being probably due to the Perot factor.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
3/11/03	Quinnipiac	Link	RV	3%	Bush	37%	Unnamed Democrat	51%	Dem +14
7/31/03	Quinnipiac	Link	RV	3%	Bush	37%	Unnamed Democrat	51%	Dem +14
2/26/04	University of Connecticut	Link	448 RV	4%	Bush	36%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +13

Punditry: The new poll adds nothing new of interest. Strong Advantage for Democrats.

	Maryland
	Electoral Votes: 10
	2000 Result
	Gore 57%
	Bush 40%

Background: Since the 1960 election, the only Republicans to carry Maryland were Nixon for his re-elect, Reagan for his re-elect, and George H. W. Bush during his first campaign. Clinton did not need Perot to win here either time. This is a Democrat state.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
1/12/04	Potomac, Inc	Link	1,200 LV	2.8%	Bush	41%	Unnamed Democrat	51%	Dem +10
2/27/04	Mason-Dixon	Link	625 LV	4%	Bush	38%	Kerry	47%	Kerry +9

Punditry: It surprises me that Bush is this close in Maryland. Strictly by the numbers, I would move this to the leans category, but given the previous few election results, I want to see more evidence first. Maryland remains a Strong Advantage for the Democrats.

	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	LV	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

Punditry: Three new polls this week. The first showed Bush opening up a lead beyond one span of the margin of error, the second showing Kerry with a one point lead, and the third showing Kerry with a 6 point lead. The former poll is more in line with previous results, but the other two are more recent. It seems only fitting that we are getting mixed messages from Florida. It is also fitting to designate Florida a Tossup.

	Kansas
	Electoral Votes: 6
	2000 Result
	Bush 58%
	Gore 37%

Background: Kansas has been a clean sweep for the GOP since Johnson beat Goldwater.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
2/9/04	SurveyUSA	Link	500 RV	4.3%	Bush	52%	Kerry	44%	Bush +8
3/4/04	SurveyUSA	Link	501 RV	4.5%	Bush	57%	Kerry	39%	Bush +18

Punditry: Last time, I said "currently an 8 point lead for Bush at a time where Kerry is riding high in the polls in a state that always goes Republican and last time was well into the double digits? Sounds like a Strong Advantage for Bush." Now it is an 18 point lead. This is bordering on moving to safe.

---

There is also out, as of Saturday, a Scripps Howard Texas Poll. I could not find the actual percentages, but to no one's surprise it shows President Bush carrying Texas.

---

Last Update: 3/7/04

Summary Table

Effective National Popular Results: Bush 46%, Kerry 44%

Kerry					Bush
Safe	Strong	Lean	Slight	Tossup	Slight	Lean	Strong	Safe
VT (3)	NY (31)	WI (10)	NM (5)	OR (7)	NV (5)	GA (15)	CO (9)	ND (3)
MA (12)	DE (3)	-	ME (4)	WV (5)	NJ (15)	TN (11)	SC (8)	AL (9)
DC (3)	MD (10)	-	MI (17)	PA (21)	NH (4)	MO (11)	KY (8)	MT (3)
RI (4)	WA (11)	-	MN (10)	FL (27)	AZ (10)	VA (13)	KS (6)	WY (3)
HI (4)	CT (7)	-	IA (7)	-	-	OH (20)	MS (6)	UT (5)
-	IL (21)	-	-	-	-	IN (11)	SD (3)	ID (4)
-	CA (55)	-	-	-	-	AR (6)	LA (9)	AK (3)
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	NC (15)	NE (5)
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	OK (7)
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	TX (34)
Totals
Kerry States			Battleground States			Bush States
26	138	10	43	60	34	87	64	76
174			137			227

Discuss ECB2004 On Free Republic

---

Last week's quiz:

How well do polls measure the underlying population? Imagine a state (let's call it Michigan). Let's say that we conduct a poll where we are going to sample 600 voters. Let us further say that God has whispered in our ears and told us that "right now, Kerry has the support of 49% of the voters, and Bush has support of 45% of the voters." When we run our poll, approximately what percentage of the time will our 600 voter poll show Kerry ahead (by any margin)? What percentage of the time will our 600 voter poll show Bush ahead (by any margin)? And what percentage of the time will they be tied?

To answer this question, one can use what are called Monte Carlo simulations. Pretty much, a Monte Carlo simulation is just one where things are set up to have the same probability, and then you just use random chance. You repeat it many times to get a feel for how often each result occurs. If you do enough iterations, you get the probability. I ran 1,000,000 simulations of a 600 sample where each "person" polled had a 49% chance of answering "Kerry" and a 45% chance of answering "Bush".

When a 'win' was considered to be where a candidate got 301 or more of the 600 in the sample, then Kerry came out higher in 83.87% of the iterations, Bush higher in 15.12% of them. When a 'win' was considered to be where the results are reported as integer percentages instead, then Kerry came out higher in 81.15% of the iterations, Bush in 12.83% of them.

So Cal Rocket and Coop anwered it correctly. Coop did first using his intuition. So Cal Rocket used the method I did.

This week's question: The most recent American Research Group poll of Florida has Bush getting 44% of the vote. The previous poll, by Research 2000, had his support level at 47%. When a candidate gets 44% of the support in a poll, what are the odds (represented as a percentage of the time) that his real level of support is 47% or greater? Assume there is a way to find out what the real level of support is, and assume that the poll has a sample size of 400.

[LdSentinal]

Northeast Ohio is bleeding population. Northeast Ohio is a haven for Democrats.

[PGalt]

Very interesting. Thanks for your work.

[america-rules]

WA will be close. The new Bush ads are already airing and there will be good turnout to vote Murry out.

There's alot of people supporting Ft Lewis troops who are in Iraq right now.

But will it be enough ?

[WoofDog123]

"G.W. Bush is also more of a conservative "

Maybe in his public persona, but as far as any legislation, he is a far bigger spender and government expander than his father.

[JLS]

Sure, but G.W. Bush has:

1. Reduced taxes and not gone back and raised them.

2. Supported a defense of marriage ammendment not signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act. [No matter what you think of it, the Americans with Disabilities Act is government intervention in the market place.]

3. Appointed conservative Judges in the face of blocking in the Senate not appointed Justice Souter to the US Supreme Court. Imagine G.H.W. Bush had to use up political capital to get this captive of the Beltway through the Senate.

The budget and spending is one issue. But there are many otehr ways to be a conservative. G.W. Bush seems pretty conservative to me compared to his centerist father.

[TomEwall]

I mostly agree with this (from intuition) except I think OH and NV are leaning GOP. In particular, I can't see Bush winning the election, nor it being particularly close, if he loses Ohio.

[KQQL]

True, but I think OH is a slight GOP lean to a toss up same with NV @ this time.

[TomEwall]

The following states were extremely close (2%) in 2000:
Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin. Of these Bush only won Florida and New Hampshire. The only one of these states which to my mind seems markedly different than last time is New Hampshire (being a border state for Kerry). Giving this state to Kerry would result in Bush still winning because of the difference in how the electoral college is apportioned by states this time (I think).

The following states were close (2% to 5%): Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Tennessee and Washington.

Bush seems to be in good shape if the election is close because last time he won even though he lost 5 of the 7 super close states. Giving away New Hampshire, he still wins. So if Bush wins Florida, he should be in good shape.

That is to say, if Bush wins Florida, he can improve over 2000 by winning any of IA, MN, WI, OR or NM, which were within 1%. Kerry would then probably have to win Ohio, because the other states that were close are already counted in the RAT column, except for Missouri, Nevada and Tennessee. TN is more GOP than last time, because it's not a home state, and MO and NV don't have enough electoral votes to make up for Florida, so Kerry would have to win Ohio. But if Kerry wins Ohio, I don't think the election will be close. So Bush would win if the election were close, provided he won Florida.

I have heard that Florida has become more GOP since 2000, meaning that if Bush were to lose Florida, the election probably wouldn't be close. So the conclusion is that Bush will win the election if it's close.

The underlying assumption behind all this is that things are the same in the states as they were in 2000. I'd be interested in knowing if there has been a move in states, such as what I heard about Florida.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Neets]

A Sunday morning ping in case anyone was left off the list earlier.

IF you want on/off this ping list, please send a "Private Reply"

[Indy Pendance]

We had a lot of voter fraud in Wisconsin in the 2000 election, smokes for votes, Marquette students admitted to voting multiple times, felons voting, etc... We lost President Bush by 5,708 votes, or 0.22%. There has been some interesting things going on here, a Rat was recalled from the Milwaukee county exec position, replaced by a conservative. Feingold barely won his senate seat. Our democrat AG was arrested for drunk driving. The WI House just voted for a constitutional amendment to ban homo marriages, 69-27 (off the top of my head, might be slightly different numbers there) which is headed to the senate. Our rules are, it has to pass twice, so we could be voting on this referendum as early as April 2005. I hope these anecdotes are telling as to how Wisconsin will vote for the President.

[Conservateacher]

Thanks for you efforts!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping.

Thanks for the fascinating info!

Looks , right now, like a close election unless Bush can get people aroused again about the War on Terror!

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

GHW Bush lost his congressional seat because he was too loberal on race relations

President Bush 41 was in fact liberal on civil rights, for a southern congressman, in the late 60's. However he was in the same position most Republicans were at the time and was in agreement with the Texas 7th district he represented.

He did not run for reelection in 1970, and ran against Lloyd Bentsen for the Senate and lost.

[raloxk]

I thought he was defeated in 1968

[HostileTerritory]

Even my own state of Massachusetts almost voted to abolish the income tax a few years ago, and we're #49 or #50 on the list of states likely to go for the Pubbie in a national election. There's a disconnect between how people vote on state tax increases (always no) and how they'll vote nationally.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

I thought he was defeated in 1968

No, he first won in 66 and was reelected in 68. Bill Archer took the seat in 70 when Bush ran for Senate. I was 16 in 66 and worked many hours on his campaign and came in to town from UT Austin to help in 68, even appearing on the old Alvin van Black KTRH radio show with the Congressman.

[raloxk]

thanks, that must have been one of the few GOP held seats in TX at that time

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

I believe that we held one in the panhandle and Bush was the second, though we might have had one in Dallas. We held no statewide offices and had Senator Tower, gained in a special election to replace VP LBJ when 7 dims ran and Tower.