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.

[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.