Electoral College Breakdown, March 7th Update

ECB2004 ^ | 3/6/04 | Dales

[jmaroneps37]

I don't know which is more rediculous: That this guy has Florida as a toss up or that he has New Jersey leaning to Bush.
W will win Florida by at least 8 to 10 points ( don't believe that? answer this: where will lurch's votes come from? Jeb WON Miami DAD and only lost Broward by 50k) Lurch couldn't get himself arrested above Palm Beach county except in Jacksonville. The new registerations in Florida are going GOP very big.
Florida is as safe for the President as New Jersey is for lurch. I've worked campaigns in both states and; I can tell you with certainty that New Jersey is as solid a rat state as New York. Lots of the rest of this report looks fishy as well. lurch is not going to sniff a single Southern state. All of them will be out of play very early and it will save both sides time and money.

[raloxk]

Ok, not surprised that the panhandle was GOP, since it is more like Colorado or NM than the rest of TX.

[Tall_Texan]

In demographics, the working-class Jewish and Catholics families from Chicago have been replaced by third world immigrants, singles, and gays.

IOW, Cub fans!

[Tall_Texan]

Your analysis is good. Barring a disaster, Kerry has to win a lot more close ones than Bush does.

As for Florida, I think Bush has one decided advantage there (other than his brother). The big thing Dems always did in Florida was try to scare senior citizens. While I'm not happy with the Medicare add-on, it should insulate him from the "Republicans want to take away your Social Security and Medicare" scare tactic. How, can it be argued, is Bush going to take away their Medicare when he just added a big chunk to it?

It won't change the mind of the rank and file, but it will change the minds of the fence-sitters. I also think a lot of the retired vets will support a CIC who is leading the country during wartime before thinking about their own benefits package.

[Tall_Texan]

This model leaves out the minimum 10 Million fradulent (D) votes . . .

This may be harder to pull off than in the past (though we can never underestimate the will of liberals to commit fraud for the sake of their cause). The 2002 HAVA voting act changed some federal eelction laws. One of which ended the challenging of voters' eligibility at the polls. Instead, election judges are required to make them fill out a provisional ballot and an affidavit if they cannot show proof of registration and identification. There's a *lot* of paperwork involved in the provisional ballot process which will make it a laborious task for everyone except those who truly insist on voting.

While that initially seems like a bad thing, it's a good thing unless the election board itself is corrupt. Roving bands of voters will not be able to go from polling place to polling place and vote without being discovered.

Dead people pared from the voting rolls will also not be able to slip through the cracks. It will also be more difficult for illegals to vote like they were doing in California.

What this all does is put the entire question of who can vote and who can't in the hands of a small group in each county's election office. If that group is corrupt, there are ways to commit fraud, same as always. But if they are honest or watched, they won't be able to generate the hundreds of fraudulent ballots they were capable of doing under the old system. It should be more time-consuming and difficult to commit fraud now.

I think that's why you still hear a lot of Democrat complaining about the electronic voting machines and the like. They haven't figured out how to rig them like they could with other methods. I expect some election day court challenges and other shenanigans like they did in Missouri in 2000 in hopes they can buy time to fake more ballots.

[Clintonfatigued]

Good point. The loggers and timber workers are the swing vote in Oregon. Bush ran well among them. Gore only won the state by some 6,800 votes, with Ralph Nader siponing off thousands of votes from him.

[TomEwall]

Thank you.

I was a bit tired and screwed up the logic some. I was reasoning that if Bush wins Florida, then Kerry would have to make up for it by winning Ohio, but that's not right because since it went RAT last time, there's nothing to make up. So he'd just have to win the states that Gore won last time, plus some other state.

Florida, from what I've heard, seems to have drifted GOP since 2000. Plus Lieberman probably helped some. So it's unlikely that Bush can win the election without Florida, because if he loses Florida it probably means he loses some other states he won last time.

Of the states that were close, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Tennessee went to Gore. Because of how the electoral votes have been reapportioned, Bush can lose Nevada and New Hampshire and still win (probably -- it would be a tie, in which case Bush probably wins). If Ohio or Tennessee went to Kerry, then he probably wins big. So the key state to watch is probably Missouri.

The article stated Missouri is a must hold state for Bush, but I think it's also a must hold state for Kerry. He has to take some state that Gore lost, in addition to Nevada and New Hampshire. It's hard to see how he loses Missouri and wins the election.

[Clintonfatigued]

Another point about Florida. Gore benefitted from the high turnout and enthusiasm from Florida's Jewish community. Choosing Joe Leiberman as running mate was a shrewd choice. But this year, George W. Bush is making inroads into the Jewish vote, thanks to his foreign policy. In fact, Boca Raton elected a Republican Mayor, and the elected Democrat Mayors of Fort Lauderdale and Miami Beach have endorsed Bush.

IMHO, ground zero will be in Ohio.

[Clintonfatigued]

No doubt, that's the so-called social issues at work.

[TomEwall]

"IMHO, ground zero will be in Ohio."

I think it's Missouri.

I think Missouri would go for Kerry before Ohio would, and Kerry could win by taking Missouri while still losing Ohio.

[AntiGuv]

You should think very carefully before you give too much weight, if any, to the Hoover Institute Knowledge Networks polling of California. I wouldn't even cite them, but of course it's your choice. Read their methodology and judge for yourself:

Our surveys are conducted with probability samples of persons who are members of the web-enabled panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants were chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers. Persons in selected households were then invited by telephone to participate in the web-enabled panel. Those who agreed to participate were sent an Internet appliance and received an Internet service connection provided by Knowledge Networks. In some cases, people who already had computers and Internet service were permitted to participate using their own equipment. Panelists then received unique log-in information for accessing surveys online, and then were sent emails three-to-four times a month inviting them to participate in research.

[AntiGuv]

If you're saying Ohio went RAT last time, that is incorrect. Ohio voted for Bush by 49.97% to Al Gore's 46.46%.

[Tall_Texan]

by winning Ohio, but that's not right because since it went RAT last time, there's nothing to make up.

Ohio went for Bush last time, unless I'm mistaking what you meant to say.

Assuming most states hold the same from 2000, these are the states most vulnerable for each to hold:

Bush: FL (27), NH (4), WV (5), NV (5), MO (11).
Kerry: PA (21), IA (7), NM (5), ME (4), MN (10), WI (10), OR (7).

I put FL and PA at the front of the lists because they are "must haves" for each side to hold if they have any shot. NH and WV are I think the most vulnerable to Bush. I think NM and IA are going to be the hardest for Kerry to keep.

If Kerry can't win Florida, he will need to win every state Gore won plus NH and either WV or NV to get to 270. He can also accomplish this by keeping every state Gore won and winning Missouri. But everything really needs to break his way to get there, IMO, if there isn't some monumental disaster between now and November.

I don't think OH will be in play. It would be a disaster for Bush if that falls.

BTW, if a state like NJ or AZ is in play, consider the cause lost for the side that won it in 2000.

[TomEwall]

I wrote: "I was a bit tired and screwed up the logic some. I was reasoning that if Bush wins Florida, then Kerry would have to make up for it by winning Ohio, but that's not right because since it went RAT last time, there's nothing to make up."

What I wrote was unclear as well as having the mistake of "RAT" for "GOP". What I was trying to say was that when I had said Kerry would have to win Ohio to make up for Florida, that was incorrect because Bush won Florida, not Gore, so there's nothing to make up. I hope that's clearer.

On to more important matters, if the states went the same as last time, Bush would win 278 to 260, so if both NH(4) and WV(5) or NH(4) and NV(5) went to Kerry, that would be a tie, wouldn't it?

[AntiGuv]

Yep. Either combination would make the Electoral College 269-269. Then it'd go on to the U.S. House which requires a majority of the State delegations to make a selection. If the House cannot settle on a President, then the Vice President (presumably chosen by the Senate) would take power on Inauguration Day. In the unlikely event that the Senate also deadlocks, then the Speaker of the House would become President until the matter is resolved.

[AntiGuv]

Oh, and in the most unlikely event that the House is also deadlocked on electing a Speaker, or alternatively that the Speaker declines to fill in, then the President pro tempore of the Senate would become Acting President until a President has qualified. That would be either Ted Stevens (R-AK) or Robert Byrd (D-WV).

[WoofDog123]

Your points are good, though I would say that cutting taxes and raising spending is a 'have your cake and eat it too' tactic which obviously has to be paid for by us later.

My take on bush is that in the areas he can do pro-conservative things without causing too much mainstream alienation, he does. The rest he goes with the polls, or with what is likely to get him re-elected. Senior drug plan which goes up 30% in projected cost in a month, promising to resign the assault weapon ban (whether he believe the house will ever pass it or not), signing the CFR law, huge growth of fed involvement in education, etc. If ADA was being proposed today instead of 12+ years ago, I think he WOULD sign it.

The only other thing he has done that a dem would never do is stuff like telling the UN to take a hike on a variety of topics and unsigning the UNratified kyoto treaty, as well as signifigant foreign policy differences with adversaries with whom we don't have much trade (i.e. NKorea). The adversaries/rivals we do trade with get a pass (PR China)

As far as SCOTUS judges go, what kind of judge do you think he would appoint to the court if a vacancy came up right now? I am far from certain it would be a conservative, especially if he wanted him to actually be approved by the senate.

[TomEwall]

If I remember correctly, from 2000 when these possibilities were being batted around, each state gets 1 vote. And since there's more GOP states, Bush would win. So I'm assuming a tie would result in Bush winning, meaning that NH and NV wouldn't be enough (nor NH + WV). That's what made me think MO would be the key state. However, if NV and WV would go RAT before MO would, then one of the would be the key state.

BTW I agree that it shouldn't be close this time. No one seems to like Kerry (his supporters simply dislike Bush), and Kerry's support is soft.

Which leads me to an element of the original analysis which doesn't make sense to me which stated that Bush needs to solify his base to win. That seems exactly wrong to me, because Bush's support is solid while Kerry's isn't. He needs to siphon off some of Kerry's support.

I think the biggest risk for Bush is the economy, particularly the job situation. As long as the trend is up, I think he'll be fine.

[AntiGuv]

....especially if he wanted him to actually be approved by the senate.

If he wanted her to actually be approved by the Senate, I am sure she'll be a flaming liberal.. ;^)

[Luke21]

Thank you for your hard work and analysis. An excellent report of what we are up against, and quite objective.