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.

[AntiGuv]

There is also an election underfoot for the House, just to note the obvious, and it's actually far more plausible for the Dems to cut the number of GOP delegations to 25 than it is for them to retake the House.

The GOP currently controls 30 delegations, the Dems 16, 3 are split, and 1 is vacant.

Herseth wins SD (GOP 30)
GOP TX redistricting (GOP 31)
Dems win Tauzin's LA seat (GOP 30)
Dems win either NM-01 or NM-02 (GOP 29)
Dems win GA-11 & GA-12 (GOP 28)
Dems win NV-03 (GOP 27)
Dems win IN-02 & IN-08 (GOP 26)
Dems win CT-02 (GOP 25)

Also, there is no guarantee that congress critters will vote with their delegation. There will be a lot of pressure for them to just deliver their state according to the popular vote, or alternately for them to just deliver their state to the popular vote winner. Depending on how things pan out, there may be a situation of Dems picking off a few delegations and then others deadlocking even despite a GOP majority.

Of course the situation is implausible (I think an EC deadlock pretty much guarantees a Bush 2nd term) but then all these scenarios are unlikely.

[AntiGuv]

The Dems picking up two seats in Colorado, picking off either seat in New Hampshire, knocking off Anne Northup in KY-03 (while holding their KY-04 seat), picking up any seat in Illinois, or knocking off two GOP seats in Iowa are other plausibilities (however low) each of which also could flip a delegation away from the GOP column.

[Tall_Texan]

If it went to the House, doesn't it become "one state, one vote" and Bush would probably win because he'd win more states?

All this stuff just makes me admire more the wisdom of the founding fathers. Could you imagine the chaos of a national recount in a pure democracy?

[Clintonfatigued]

You may be right. Missouri will be a key state, no doubt about that. I bring up Ohio because no Republican has ever been elected without winning Ohio. It's an urban legend in D.C. that Republican nominees can't win if they lose Ohio. In 1996, the Clinton campaign made Ohio a top priority because of that tale, and some veterans of that campaign will be working for John Kerry. Also, Ohio has been hit hard by job losses.

[AntiGuv]

Yes, and there's pretty much no doubt that Bush would win more states in the House. However, in order to elect the President after an Electoral College deadlock, you have to have a majority of the states (i.e., 26+ states) vote to elect. In other words, even if the GOP won the vote by, say, 25-21 (as in my scenario above) it would still not be enough.

There are also quorum rules that might theoretically become an issue.

[TomEwall]

I'm going to have to get used to this. I just sent you a private message without meaning to, and then lost the message I was trying to post here. Oh well.

If the RATs picked up enough seats to swing the voting the way you say, they'd win the presidential election going away I think.

You're right that any scenario is unlikely, but it's interesting to guess which state would be the Florida of 2004. Hopefully a state without a supreme court like Florida's.

[TomEwall]

Certainly Bush can't win without Ohio. I was reacting to the comment that Bush couldn't win without Missouri, and it seemed to me that Kerry couldn't win without Missouri either. He could win without Ohio.

I guess Kerry could win without Missouri if he took NH, NV and WV. He'd need all 3 though. So either MO or all 3 of NH, NV and WV.

But would WV and Nevada go to Kerry before Missouri?

I haven't kept up with how the states have been changing, except for Florida.

[Owen]

Does FR have a group that plans to hit the ground in the Battleground states and drive elderly veterans from conservative zip codes to the polls? This should, of course, be coordinated with the campaign.

[Tuxedo]

Not all of NE Ohio is Dem. Lake, Geauga, Ashtabula, and Medina counties are pretty much R territory. If only we could get rid of Sherrod Brown... he has a lot of support in Lorain Co., and some from Summit Co. Dennis the Menace, Stephanie "wide load" Tubbs-Jones carry their districts pretty easily, and LaTourette is safe (R) in the east.

[JLS]

I agree with your conjecture about the Americans with Disabilities Act and what types of Justices G.W. Bush might appoint.

BTW, another less precise way than Dales of looking at the electoral situation is:

The Dims will win New England which has 34 electoral votes, the Mid-Atlantic states with 62 electoral votes and the West Coast plus HI with 77 electoral votes. This gives the Dims almost no matter who their candidate is a total base of 173 electoral votes.

The GOP will win the South [including FL] with 127 electoral votes and the Western Plains states plus AK including Tx with 105 electoral votes. That gives the GOP almost no matter who their candidate is a total base of 229 Electoral votes.

Now sure the GOP might win NH but then the Dims might win NV or OR could go GOP and NM Dim. And even FL and NJ might go Dim and GOP rather than the other way around. But these are for now a general over view of US Presidential elections and some shifting can take place without changing these numbers too dramatically. [BTW, I think only NM and NH went differently than this in the last election.]

That leaves the Midwest as the deciding area of the country. I have defined Midwest as 10 states, IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO, OH, PA, WI and WV. These 10 states total 133 electoral votes. To win the election the GOP candidate needs 38 of these 133 electoral votes and the Dim candidate needs 97 of these electoral votes.

This is why despite all the talk of the US as being a 50-50 country after the last Presidential election, in presidential elections the GOP has an advantage. If the Dims sweep the midwest, they win the election. If the Dims merely do very well in the midwest the lose the election unless they can peal off a Southern or western state or two. If the GOP can peal off a state or two from the Dim base, they can be swept in the midwest and win the election. Last election, I believe that Bush won by winnng OH, IN, MO and WV to get what today would be 46 of the total 133 electoral votes.

Again this is more of an overview. This is not nearly as election specific as Dale's analysis or the other analysis based on election futures that I saw posted last week.

And of course over time we need to evaluate changing regional groups. Could NM, AZ and NV be swinging toward the Dims? Could Florida be separating itself from the South? I tend to agree with Dales that while FL is different than the South it generally votes for Republicans statewide.

Finally this is more of a starting point. Dale's analysis gets into specifics of a particular election. For example maybe NV is not moving toward the Dims but because of a particular issue it might vote Dim this election.

[jack gillis]

I could not agree more:

If the President wants to stem the bleeding, he's going to have to remake the case over the war with Iraq.

But dales, that fundamentally contradicts your Hanson quote, which you also seem to approve of:

If White House politicos figured that many who were angered . . . would grumble, but not abandon Mr. Bush . . . then they were absolutely right.

If people are going to grumble and vote Bush anyway, then he doesn't need to re-make the case for Iraq. But I think Hanson's wrong and you are right because it's WEAK-GOP or GOP-LEANING independents who most need to hear the case re-made because of feeling betrayed by the Iraq justifications. Hanson assumes that anyone who supported Bush on Iraq will behave like a base-GOP voter. That's wrong. Trust me, I oughtta know. I know one lib Dem who supported Bush on Iraq pretty strongly.

:^{)

That notion of betrayal that you posit is extremely important: It's asymmetric and one-way. You can go from mildly critical to strongly supportive or vice versa and you can move to adjacent categories in either direction multiple times, but you NEVER go back to "strongly approve" after you've once abandoned that for "strongly disapprove" because you feel betrayed. IOW, 9 months ago there was less than 20% of the vote that Bush was never going to get. Now there's almost 30%.

The FL polls are amusing, but it will be comfortably Bush by November. Still, having to fight for it is an ominous sign for Bush. And he could still lose it--did you note the partisan splits in the ARG polls? Kerry's losing only 6% of Dems to Bush, who's losing only 8% of Repubs to Kerry. Amazing. I've literally never seen splits like that. Usually, when one candidate has his base that solid, he's already poaching big-time from the opposition's base. Under 10% erosion is not uncommon for a strong candidate against a weaker candidate, but UNPRECEDENTED for both candidates.

[Dales]

But dales, that fundamentally contradicts your Hanson quote, which you also seem to approve of

No, it does not. The former deals with the public in totality; the latter deals with the conservative/Republican base. Frankly, I had expected to see some evidence of the latter weakening, attributable to spending concerns. That evidence is not there, though. I buy into VDH's analysis. Conservative Republicans understand that despite their concerns, the foreign policy and defense positions of Kerry would be a disaster. They are staying put.

As for who it is that does need the case to be made, they are definitely 'in play' voters. I would tend to think that since they moved so noticeably during the Democrat nominating process, when a good portion of the middle is not really paying attention to a significant degree, tells me that these are people not tending to lean GOP, but rather to lean Democrat.

I'd rather you be right that they were the weak GOP or lean GOP types. It would be easier to recapture them.

did you note the partisan splits in the ARG polls? Kerry's losing only 6% of Dems to Bush, who's losing only 8% of Repubs to Kerry. Amazing.

Yes, I did. On one level, it makes sense due to the fact that the poll was taken the day after Kerry sewed up the nomination and Edwards dropped out. You would expect the Democrats polled to be unified at such a time. On another, it made me skeptical of the poll as no other Florida poll shows Bush getting only slightly more than 90% of Republicans-- neither of the other two polls released last week in Florida (including the other taken on the exact same days) showed this weakness.

Still, I revised my call and moved Florida to slight advantage for Kerry.

[Dales]

Oh, and I strongly disagree with this:

You can go from mildly critical to strongly supportive or vice versa and you can move to adjacent categories in either direction multiple times, but you NEVER go back to "strongly approve" after you've once abandoned that for "strongly disapprove" because you feel betrayed.

To the contrary, voters who make that swing tend to be the kind who are demonstrative and see things in black and white, but can change their minds. When they do, they don't find the middle. If they decide that there was a good reason to take out the brutal, murderous, oil-for-food-dollar-skimming war criminal Saddam Hussein, a good portion of them will decide that they were right to support his foreign policy originally and wrong to change their minds about it.

[benjaminthomas]

Unless you are assuming that Republicans are flexible in their support, and Democrats are not, isn't there a flaw in your reasoning? In other words, you assume that Bush's "betrayal" of Republican positions on spending will cost him Republican votes. Fair enough. But wouldn't such taking of traditionally Democratic positions win him an equal and opposite number of (or at least some) Democratic votes?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"If only we could get rid of Sherrod Brown... "

---

You would have in 2002 if Bob Taft had any b@lls. It was very easy for GOP redistricters to eliminate Brown's CD and create a GOP-leaning CD in the Western Cuyahoga suburbs, Medina and Ashtabula, since Northern Lorain could be placed in Kaptur's CD and the white part of Cleveland and its Democrat suburbs could be combined with part of Akron for Dennis's new CD. But Sherrod Brown threatened to run for Governor if he was redistricted out (with Congressman Strickland as his runningmate if Strickland was redistricted out as well), and the cowardly Taft capitulated and asked the legislature to draw safe seats for Brown and Strickland. That's why you're stuck with Sherrod Brown. Vote for Blackwell for Governor in 2006 and 2010 and you can get rid of Brown and Strickland in 2012.

[jack gillis]

Don't get greedy!! 8% erosion is mighty fine in most circumstances. You almost never see that number below 5% in any event if only because of the RINOs and DINOs (led by Lincoln Chaffe and Zell Miller respectively) in each party.

If I take your reading of Hanson, then he's not wrong, just silly. His thesis works out to "People who want to support will support Bush." Your idea is more interesting.

The reason why I tend to think the group you identify is GOP "leaners" rather than Dem "leaners" is because Dem leaners are much less likely to have ever been in the "strongly support" camp to begin with.

I think Bush will NOT re-make his case for Iraq, I think he will lose voters for that, although I don't think that means Bush will neccessarily lose the election. He won't stop the bleeding, it'll just coagulate. It's a CHARACTER thing.

:^{)

[AuH2ORepublican]

AntiGuv, the RATs will *not* be able to pick up two seats in IN or Porter's seat in NV. And Phil Gingrey will probably win fairly easily in the 11th CD in GA (although I agree that Max Burns will have a tough reelection in the 12th CD). And we don't know how SD will vote in November (even if Herseth wins the special election in June), and the RATs have yet to beat Wilson in her swing NM CD (while Pearce's CD is safely Republican). And even if all of those things occur, you are forgetting about the fact that Gene Taylor of MS, whose district is the most Republican in the state, said in 2000 that he would vote for Bush if the House had to decide because he would respect the wished of his constituents. So if neither Bush nor Kerry get to 270, I'm fairly certain that around 30 state delegations would vote for Bush. For more on this subject, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083413/posts?page=55#55

[jack gillis]

That's exactly what I think, and one of the reasons I said the movement posited by dales was "asymmetric and one way." Sure, Bush might poach a few Dem votes, but not enough to make up for the lost votes.

In other words, it takes a lot less for a weak-GOP or GOP-leaner to adopt the feeling of betrayal than it does to get weak-Dem or Dem-leaner to go all the way over and switch in the current political environment.

It's not really a GOP/Dem thing as much as it's an IN party versus OUT party thing. The party in power always has the ability to betray one of its coalition constituencies through implementing policies whereas the out-of-power party just sits on the sideline lobbing eggs.

[ken5050]

First, a superb job, as always...

I'd like to discuss a "subjective" factor which hasn't really been addressed in the general discussion. We're well into a year long presidential election, and the three major issues will be 1. Iraq/WoT/ 2. Economy/jobs, and 3. Social issues, i/e. gay marriage...as regards the first two, the Dems have as yet been able to say one thing positive about this country....everything, according to them, is going in the wrong direction...indeed, the Dems as a party can only do well if things go to hell. in effect, support the Dem party is an across the board negative bet on the future of this country.,,and ultimatelym it's gonna turn off the majority of the electorate.. Americans as a group,for the most part, are optimistic, forward looking, and you can't rail at them for 8 solid months...look for a general "fatigue" factor to set in, and Dem support to erode.

[Tuxedo]

Florida slight advantage to Kerry? Huh? What'd I miss?