Electoral College Breakdown 2004, March 31st Update

ECB2004 ^

[Dales]

I Wouldn't Touch It With a 10 Foot Poll

[This article is part two of a three part series. Part one is here.]

Are Things Leaning Towards Staying The Same?

In retrospect, it is pretty obvious that Oregon and New Mexico would eventually become tight contests in 2000 despite April polls showing George W. Bush with double digit leads over Al Gore. In 1996, President Clinton defeated Bob Dole in Oregon 47.15% to 39.06%, with Ross Perot taking in 8.80%. And in New Mexico, Clinton had topped Dole by almost as comfortable of a margin, 49.18% to 41.86%, with Perot scoring 5.80%. What caught my eye, however, was how similar the vote percentage for the Democrat candidate was in each case.

State	Clinton %, 1996	Gore %, 2000	Difference
New Mexico	49.18%	47.91%	1.27%
Oregon	47.15%	46.96%	0.19%

In New Mexico and in Oregon, the final 2000 results were as if Gore got the Clinton vote, while Bush got the Dole vote and the Perot vote. These were not the only states where this held true. In Wisconsin, Clinton had topped Dole by 10.33%, but his percentage was 0.02% less than Dole and Perot combined; Gore beat Bush there by 0.22%. In Colorado, Clinton's lost to Dole by 1.37%, and with Perot added he lagged by 7.96%; Bush beat Gore in Colorado by 8.36%. In Missouri, Clinton took the electoral prize by 6.3%, but had Perot's voters chosen Dole, the Republican would have won by 3.76%, which is very similar to the 3.34% win Bush enjoyed over Gore.

As a matter of fact, the gap between Clinton and the sum of Dole and Perot predicted the gap between Bush and Gore within a single percentage point (an average of 1/2 a percent per party) in a dozen states- Nebraska, Wisconsin, Vermont, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Arizona, Virginia, Hawaii, Michigan, Tennessee, and Ohio. Nine more states, Oregon, North Carolina, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, Alabama, Washington, and Minnesota, all were within 2%. And within 5%, which is still representing a small change of just 2.5% per "side", gets us up to a whopping 32 states.

It almost is easier to analyze the states where this trend did not hold true. Many of them involve the home states of those who were on the tickets in the two elections. President Clinton was very popular in his home state of Arkansas. He trounced both Dole and Perot by a combined 9.04%, while Gore lost the state by 5.45%, a swing of 14.49%. Dick Cheney's presence on the 2000 Republican ticket seems to have impacted Wyoming to a similar degree. In 1996, Clinton took home 25.22% less than Dole and Perot. In 2000, Gore lagged Bush by 40.06%, a swing of 14.84%. George W. Bush was worth a 9.64% Republican gain in Texas. Joe Lieberman improved the Democrat's Connecticut lot by 9.35%. Without Dole on the ticket, Bush did 6.03% less than the combined Dole/Perot vote in Kansas. Jack Kemp seemed to have the least impact, with New York going to Gore by 4.09% more than Clinton took over Dole and Perot. Since Gore was on the ticket in both elections, it is not surprising that Tennessee was one of the states where the sum of Dole and Perot predicted well the Gore versus Bush race.

It even held true on the national level for the popular vote. Clinton won 49.23% of the vote. Gore won 48.38%, a 0.85% difference. The sum of Dole and Perot's support was 49.12%. Bush took 47.87%, which is just 1.25% less. The 2000 election was indicative of a very evenly divided nation. So was the 1996 election. It was just hidden by a third party candidacy. If it was that Perot took votes from the Republicans, or if George W. Bush was able to capture all of the remaining Perot voters is unclear, as is if those are actually two different things. What is clear is that Clinton versus Dole plus Perot predicted the results of Gore versus Bush as perfectly as anything can, barring the use of a time machine.

This does not imply that Perot cost Dole the election in 1996. We can never know how his involvement altered the debate. But given the fact that Clinton added so much to the Arkansas Democrat tally, enough to move that state to the Democrats, the odds are that he would have won even if everywhere else Dole had captured all of the Perot vote.

The degree by which states were stable between 1996 and 2000 is not common. As a comparison, I looked at the 1876-1880 elections. As mentioned previously, both were extremely close. The 1876 election was decided by a single electoral vote and less than 2% of the national vote. The 1880 election was decided by 0.02% in the popular vote and 51 electoral votes, with many states being by very small margins. Many states were just as close in both elections, but even then not to the degree they were similar in 1996 and 2000 (once Perot is factored out). Where 12 states in 2000 (representing 23.5% of the races) were within a single point of the gap between Clinton and his two main opponents, in 1880 only 2 states (5.4% of the races) did the margin change by less than a point. In 2000, 35 races were within 5% of the 1996 gap (68.6%); in 1880, 23 were (62.1%).

In many ways, all of the drama and intrigue behind the 2000 election was much ado over nothing. All of the debates, all of the advertising, all of partisanship, all of the hubbub over soccer moms and swing voters, all of it mattered little. And since in many ways 2000 was a repeat of 1996, I think it is likely that 2004 is going to continue the trend. The precedent for the status quo remaining has already been set.

Which brings me back to the ECB. I was trying to determine how likely a contested state showing a strong advantage for a candidate as of early April was to end up going to the trailing candidate. The answer I have arrived it is "not very likely if that state was not within a handful of points in 2000". Not likely, that is, unless a Vice Presidential candidate is added from one of those states. John Kerry might decide to go after Louisiana by choosing John Breaux or Mary Landreiu. Other than that, it looks to me like all of the current strong states are going to remain with their leader.

Moving on to the states which were leaning for Bush last time around brings us to Nevada, Missouri, Kentucky, Alabama, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Gore managed to pick off the two jewels of the bunch, taking the rust belt states. In the nine states which were leaning towards Gore, Bush picked off Tennessee, but the leads in Minnesota, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, Vermont and Maryland held up. All three of the ones that flipped were ones where the gap between Clinton and Dole/Perot was smaller than 5%. Of the leaning states that did not flip, only Minnesota fell into that category, barely; Minnesota was a very close state in 2000.

Of the states currently leaning, Wisconsin, Oregon, Iowa for Kerry and Tennessee, Nevada, and Missouri for Bush are the ones where the 2000 gap was less than 5%. The rest of the leaning states are unlikely to change, but these states can be picked off by a well run campaign.

---

This Week's Polling Updates Overview

I added a large number of poll results this week into the ECB2004. Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, and New York moved towards the President, while Oklahoma, Iowa, Ohio, and Colorado moved towards Kerry. In almost every case, the movement made the overall race tighter, with only Iowa moving to a less competitive status.

One thing of interest is that the states which were most directly impacted by the murderous attacks of 9/11 are showing more support for the President than one would anticipate. New York, New Jersey, and Maryland are all much closer than their recent history and common perception would indicate. The only poll I have for Virginia is dated but it too showed Bush doing much better than he did in 2000; I left it as a leaner to be conservative, but perhaps that was a mistake.

---

New York

	F		New York
			Electoral Votes: 31
			2000 Result
			Gore 60%
			Bush 35%

Background: From 1960 onward, Republicans have carried the Empire State only three times. Nixon beat McGovern, Reagan beat Carter, and Reagan beat Mondale. Even Dukakis won here.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
4/03	Marist	Link	RV	4%	Bush	32%	Unnamed Democrat	39%	Dem +7
9/23/03	Marist	Link	RV	4%	Bush	32%	Unnamed Democrat	48%	Dem +16
10/28/03	Quinnipiac	NA	RV	4%	Bush	42%	Kerry	50%	Dem +8
11/19/03	Zogby	Link	LV	4%	Bush	41%	Kerry	46%	Dem +5
1/7/04	Marist	Link	617 RV	4%	Bush	34%	Unnamed Democrat	36%	Dem +2

Punditry: The Marist poll I am adding now is already very stale, but it is more recent than what I previously had. It also, surprisingly, validated the earlier polls showing New York to be competitive. I would imagine that the state has swung back towards the Democrats since January, and as such I cannot bring myself to drop this all the way down to battleground status, which the last two polls would indicate is where it belongs. I'll put New York as Leaning Towards Kerry, with the caveat that I fully expect the Empire State to move strongly to the left in the next poll for the state.

---

New Jersey

	New Jersey
	Electoral Votes: 15
	2000 Result
	Gore 56%
	Bush 40%

Background: New Jersey used to be considered a Republican state. Those days have passed, although there are still some signs of life. In the last 10 Presidential elections it has gone 1-6-3 with the Republican wins coming in the middle, the last Clinton win and the Gore win were by such substantial margins that it is hard to avoid the feeling that New Jersey is trending leftward.

If New Jersey remains tight enough to stay in the battleground, it is a case of back to the future. ECB2000 started with it leaning Gore's way. The Democrats have 7 of 13 Representatives and both Senate seats, control both chambers of the state legislature, hold all of the important executive offices, and have a 25%-19% advantage in voter registration.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
9/8/03	Rutgers	Link	802 Adults	3.5%	Bush	43%	Unnamed Democrat	35%	Bush +8
9/15/03	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	36%	Unnamed Democrat	29%	Bush +7
9/25/03	Quinnipiac	Link	RV	3.1%	Bush	48%	Kerry	43%	Bush +5
11/10/03	Quinnipiac	Link	1,027 RV	3.1%	Bush	46%	Kerry	43%	Bush +3
1/11/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	40%	Unnamed Democrat	32%	Bush +8
1/13/04	Rutgers	Link	823 RV	4.2%	Bush	41%	Unnamed Democrat	38%	Bush +3

Punditry: The Jersey saga continues. I find yet another fairly stale poll for the Garden State. And yet again, it confirms a Slight Advantage for Bush.

I have spent more time pondering New Jersey's prospects than any other state. While I still do not have any polls which were taken after Kerry became the nominee and enjoyed his media-driven surge, there are some things which give me some indications of the status of things.

First, as mentioned in the last ECB update for New Jersey, a March poll that measured approval ratings in New Jersey only showed a 3 point drop for the President from November, when Bush had a three point lead here. This is evidence that he is holding tough here.

Second, by mid-January in many states that trend Democrat, Bush had already fallen behind.

State	2000 Result	Date of closest poll to mid-January	Poll Result	Difference
Massachusetts	Gore +27	12/03	Kerry +18	9
Rhode Island	Gore +29	2/7/04	Unnamed Democrat +18	11
Maryland	Gore +17	1/12/04	Unnamed Democrat +10	7
Connecticut	Gore +18	7/31/03	Unnamed Democrat +14	4
		2/26/04	Kerry +13	5
Illinois	Gore +13	1/9/04	Unnamed Democrat +8	5
California	Gore +11	1/13/04	Unnamed Democrat +1	10
		1/18/04	Unnamed Democrat +5	8
New York	Gore +25	1/7/04	Unnamed Democrat +2	23
New Jersey	Gore +16	1/11/04	Bush +8	24
		1/13/04	Bush +3	19

There is no denying that New Jersey has been hostile territory for Republicans of late. But there is a distinct possibility that something has changed. It isn't hard to imagine what it could be either- 9/11. No states were impacted at a core level the way New York and New Jersey were. The polls across the country are suggesting that electorally, not much has changed since last election, despite 9/11. I am not sure that things are unchanged in New York and New Jersey. That makes them very interesting to watch, at least in the early portions of the campaign.

---

Alabama

	Alabama
	Electoral Votes: 9
	2000 Result
	Bush 56%
	Gore 42%

Background: Alabama has been a reliable GOP state, only straying twice since 1960; both times it went for a southerner. Jimmy Carter carried the state, as did George Wallace.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
4/27/03	USA Polling Group	Link	RV	5%	Bush	60%	Unnamed Democrat	30	Bush +30
3/18/04	USA Polling Group	Link	405 adults	5%	Bush	59%	Kerry	27%	Bush +32

Punditry: Second verse, same as the first. Safe Bush.

---

Colorado

	F		Colorado
			Electoral Votes: 9
			2000 Result
			Bush 51%
			Gore 42%

Background: Colorado is generally considered to be winnable for the Democrats, but historically this has proven to be a solid GOP bastion. Only three times since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President has a Democrat carried this state (Truman, Johnson, and Clinton against Bush- with a big thanks to Perot taking 23% of the tally).

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
9/8-10/03	Colorado Democratic Party	NA	RV	4%	Bush	42%	Unnamed Democrat	35%	Bush +7
12/15-16/03	Public Opinion Strategies	NA	LV	4.9%	Bush	46%	Unnamed Democrat	36%	Bush +10
3/16/04	Public Opinion Strategies	NA	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	46%	Kerry	42%	Bush +4

Punditry: Up until now, I had the following as the comment here: "Colorado may end up being a single digit margin, but the results will likely never be in doubt." This poll does not change that analysis. One thing that always intruiges me is trying to figure out the motivations behind partisan polling companies when they make public their own results. Why does the Republican pollster choose to release these numbers? Why do Democrat pollsters choose to release the numbers they do? What can be gleaned from those decisions?

Technically, a 4 point margin goes into the slight category, but not when the previous polls all had things being less close. I am dropping Colorado down to Leaning Towards Bush.

---

Missouri

	Missouri
	Electoral Votes: 11
	2000 Result
	Bush 50%
	Gore 47%

Background: Considered by many to be a bellwether state, Missouri has gone Republican in every election after 1964 except for three. Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford by a small, four point margin. Bill Clinton won the state twice, but both times relied on Perot taking double digits (over 20% in the first). From 1968 on, the only Democrat to break 50% in Missouri was Carter, and the only Republican to fail to get 50% absent a truly strong third party candidate was Ford.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
9/9/03	Research 2000	Link	600 LV	4%	Bush	49%	Dick Gephardt	39%	Bush +10
1/29/04	Research 2000	Link	804 LV	4%	Bush	45%	Unnamed Democrat	40%	Bush +5
2/14/04	Decision Research (D)	NA	LV	4%	Bush	46%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +3
3/2/04	Suffolk University	Link	LV	4%	Bush	50%	Kerry	39%	Bush +11
3/19/04	Decision Research (D)	NA	LV	4%	Bush	46%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +3
3/23/04	Rasmussen	Link	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	49%	Kerry	42%	Bush +7

Punditry: Kerry's improvement in other states has not carried over to the Show Me state. The divergent polls for Missouri and Iowa are very interesting, and indicate to me that the uncountered publicity Kerry got during the intense run-up to the Iowa Caucuses is having a lasting effect there. Here, Missouri still Leans for Bush. Decision Research, a Democrat polling firm, seems to be out of step with other firms.

---

Minnesota

	Minnesota
	Electoral Votes: 10
	2000 Result
	Gore 48%
	Bush 46%

Background: Nixon (against McGovern) is the only Republican winner since Ike. Reagan (against Carter) and Bush (against Gore) made it close, and it is possible that Dole could have beaten Clinton sans Perot. The Reagan race that was close was notable because it was against the homestate Mondale.

The slight advantage for the Democrats is a step up from the leaning Gore position at the start of ECB 2000. Minnesota's legislative seats are split right down the middle. Half of the Representatives, half of the Senate seats, and one of the state legislative chambers are held by each party. Most of the important executive branch offices are held by Republicans with the exception of Attorney General.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
1/26/04	Mason-Dixon	NA	LV	4%	Bush	41%	Kerry	43%	Kerry +2
3/25/04	Rasmussen	Link	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	44%	Kerry	47%	Kerry +3

Punditry: Kerry maintains a slight lead in Minnesota. It is still somewhat surprising to see Minnesota polling to the right of Iowa, but perhaps it should not be. Slight Advantage for Kerry.

---

Iowa

	F		Iowa
			Electoral Votes: 7
			2000 Result
			Gore 48%
			Bush 46%

Background: Iowa is a state of streaks, going 1-5-4 over the last 10. Clinton would likely have lost his first campaign against Bush had Perot not been a factor. The state is generally close, with the only surprisingly large margin coming when Dukakis beat Bush by 10 points.

Iowa rated a slight advantage to Bush in the first ECB of 2000. This time, it rates a slight advantage to the Democrats. Other positions in Iowa are mixed. The Republicans hold 4 of the 5 House seats, and the Senate seats are split. The Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature, but the Democrats hold all major executive offices except for Auditor. Republicans hold a 32% to 29% advantage in registration.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
9/12/03	Des Moines Register	Link	803 Adults	3.5%	Bush	41%	Unnamed Democrat	41%	Even
10/30/03	Research 2000	Link	LV	4%	Bush	46%	Unnamed Democrat	47%	Dem +1
1/5/04	Research 2000	Link	LV	4%	Bush	50%	Unnamed Democrat	42%	Bush +8
2/11/04	Selzer & Co.	NA	RV	3.4%	Bush	42%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +7
3/23/04	Rasmussen	Link	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	41%	Kerry	51%	Kerry +10

Punditry: Considering how well Kerry resonated with Iowa voters as shown by his startling win in the caucuses, his lead in Iowa is not all that surprising. Leans toward Kerry.

---

West Virginia

	West Virginia
	Electoral Votes: 5
	2000 Result
	Bush 52%
	Gore 46%

Background: It was a huge change from the past when Bush beat Gore here in 2000. Over the last eighteen elections, the Democrats have won 14, and both of Clinton's wins would almost certainly have come even without Ross Perot. This is not a state the Democrats should have lost.

In the first ECB of 2000, West Virginia was rated as a battleground state with a slight advantage to Bush. This time around, it is starting as a complete tossup. Two of West Virginia's three Representatives are Democrats. Democrats control everything else: both Senate seats, both chambers of the state legislature, and the top executive branch offices. It is easy to see why, when 60% of the registered voters are Democrats and just 29% Republican.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
3/24/04	American Research Group	Link	600 LV, Nader not an option	4%	Bush	47%	Kerry	46%	Bush +1
3/24/04	American Research Group	Link	600 LV, Nader an option	4%	Bush	46%	Kerry	46%	Push

Punditry: It's here! It's here! The second most eagerly anticipated state poll in my eyes (I want a New Jersey poll more)- West Virginia! Finally, there is some indication, to tell us which way the state is leaning this election cycle! It is leaning... in no direction!

Imagine that.Toss-up.

(Nader hurts Bush?)

---

Ohio

	F		Ohio
			Electoral Votes: 20
			2000 Result
			Bush 50%
			Gore 46%

Background: Since Truman, Ohio has gone Democrat three times. Carter edged Ford by an extremely slim margin, and Clinton won twice, both times relying on Perot heavily.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
2/7/03	Ohio Poll	Link	RV	4%	Bush	59%	Unnamed Democrat	36%	Bush +23
9/19/03	Ohio Poll	Link	RV	4%	Bush	57%	Kerry	38%	Bush +19
3/16/04	Rasmussen	Link	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	41%	Kerry	45%	Kerry +4
3/24/04	Ohio Poll	Link	632 RV	3.9%	Bush	44%	Kerry	46%	Kerry +2

Punditry: Another nail biter, which provides no impetus to change the designation from Slight Advantage for Kerry.

While the latest poll shows a nominal lead for Kerry, after looking at the details of the poll it has to be considered to be a favorable poll for the President. For seniors (65 and over), it is an effective tie (Bush 48, Kerry 47, Nader 0). For voters age 46 to 64, Bush leads 51 to 44, with Nader a scant 3%. For ages 30 to 45, Bush again leads by a point, 46 to 45 with Nader getting a mere 2. The entire Kerry lead comes in the under 29 vote, where Bush gets only 22% (compared to Nader's 20%!) while Kerry takes 56%. This age group by far is the least likely to turn out on election day, and this is also the age group that historically is more volitile during a campaign, with their support changing often.

---

Wisconsin

	F		Wisconsin
			Electoral Votes: 10
			2000 Result
			Gore 47.83%
			Bush 47.61%

Background: I got the *BLEEP* kicked out of me in Wisconsin. Oh wait, sorry. Stripes flashback. Reagan won here twice. Nixon won here three times. LBJ and Carter (against Ford) won here, and then the Democrats have taken the last four elections here. The first of Clinton's wins would have been a loss for him without Perot.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
5/03	Badger Poll	Link	LV	4%	Bush	53%	Unnamed Democrat	42%	Bush +11
10/28/03	Badger Poll	Link	LV	4%	Bush	46%	Unnamed Democrat	45%	Bush +1
1/27/04	Badger Poll	Link	LV	4%	Bush	38%	Unnamed Democrat	54%	Dem +16
3/24/04	American Research Group	Link	600 LV	4%	Bush	43%	Unnamed Democrat	46%	Kerry +3

Punditry: Wisconsin's latest poll returns the state smack dab into the heart of the 2004 battleground. Two of the last three polls show this race to be neck and neck. Since the middle one of the three was in Kerry's favor, and this one has a small margin for him, we'll call Wisconsin a Slight Advantage for Kerry.

One interesting tidbit about the ARG poll. According to American Research, "88% of Democrats say they have an unfavorable opinion of Bush", but Kerry only gets 85% support from the Democrats. Similarly, 85% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of George Bush, but he only gets 82% of them as supporters.

---

Washington

	F		Washington
			Electoral Votes: 11
			2000 Result
			Gore 50%
			Bush 45%

Background: The Democrats have won the last four, and 6 of the last 10, with all four Republican wins coming consecutively (Nixon, Ford, ReaganX2). It is unclear as to if Clinton would have won the first time here sans Perot; it would likely have been extremely close. The Dukakis/Bush race was very close. The Clinton/Dole race was not.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
1/5/04	SurveyUSA	NA	975 RV	3.2%	Bush	48%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +1
2/4/04	SurveyUSA	Link	975 RV	3.2%	Bush	43%	Kerry	55%	Kerry +12
3/24/04	SurveyUSA	Link	698 LV	3.8%	Bush	43%	Kerry	47%	Kerry +4
3/25/04	Rasmussen	Link	500 LV	4.5%	Bush	44%	Kerry	50%	Kerry +6

Punditry: Bush has made a nice little comeback in Washington, and the race is now fairly competitive. It does not fit my definition of a battleground (yet) but could easily move there if the trend continues. Leaning towards Kerry. Bush's biggest problem in Washington is that his disapproval numbers are 11 points higher than Kerry's. If he is going to catch him here, it will need to be by driving Kerry's negatives up.

---

Connecticut

	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
3/28/04	University of Connecticut	Link	RV	4%	Bush	33%	Kerry	52%	Kerry +19

Punditry: In stark contrast to New York and New Jersey, Connecticut has not shown any indications of being closer this time than last. The only bright spot in the UConn poll is that Kerry only gets 47% of independents. But even that is only half good, as Bush gets less than 1/3 (many independents in Connecticut are undecided). Strong Advantage for Democrats.

---

Utah

	Utah
	Electoral Votes: 5
	2000 Result
	Bush 67%
	Gore 26%

Background: You have to go back to Johnson to find a Democrat win here. Clinton came in third in his first election. This is Republican territory.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
2/19/04	American Research Group	Link	404 residents	5%	Bush	64%	Kerry	31%	Bush +33
3/25/04	Dan Jones	Link	RV	5%	Bush	66%	Kerry	24%	Bush +42

Punditry: Two reasons to love Utah: it polls like this, and Snowbird mountain. Safe for Bush.

---

Oklahoma

	F		Oklahoma
			Electoral Votes: 7
			2000 Result
			Bush 60%
			Gore 38%

Background: Republicans have won every election here since LBJ.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
3/1/04	Wilson Research	NA	300 RV	5.7%	Bush	50%	Kerry	40%	Bush +10

Punditry: The poll is suprisingly tight, which probably has a lot to do with the large margin of error. For prudence, I will downgrade Oklahoma to Strong Advantage for Bush, although I anticipate the margin to open back up within relatively short order.

---

Pennsylvania

	F		Pennsylvania
			Electoral Votes: 21
			2000 Result
			Gore 51%
			Bush 46%

Background: Democrats have won this state 6 of the last 10 elections, with the first of Clinton's wins being attributable to Ross Perot being on the ballot (19%). Typically, the races in the Keystone state have been close. Pennsylvania started as leaning Bush last time, but has drifted to where it has a slight advantage for the Democrats. Republicans hold a 12-7 advantage in the numbers of Representatives, and hold both Senate seats. They also hold both chambers of the state legislature. The Democrats hold the major executive branch positions except for Attorney General, and have a significant registration advantage (48%-42%).

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
5/13/03	Quinnipiac	Link	952 RV	3.2%	Bush	56%	Kerry	34%	Bush +22
10/9/03	Quinnipiac	Link	1,116 RV	3%	Bush	50%	Kerry	43%	Bush +7
11/23/03	Muhlenberg College	Link	430 RV	4.7%	Bush	47%	Kerry	40%	Bush +7
12/14/03	Quinnipiac	Link	1,092 RV	3%	Bush	50%	Kerry	42%	Bush +8
2/18/04	Quinnipiac	Ling	1,356 RV	2.7%	Bush	45%	Kerry	50%	Dem +5
2/22/04	Keystone Poll	Link	392 RV	4.9%	Bush	46%	Kerry	47%	Dem +1
3/3/04	Pennsylvania Public Mind	Link	1750 Adults	2.4%	Bush	45%	Kerry	47%	Kerry +2
3/11/04	Survey USA	Link	802 RV	3.5%	Bush	47%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +2
3/15/04	Qunnipiac	Link	1,022 RV (Nader not given as an option)	3	Bush	44%	Kerry	45%	Kerry +1
3/15/04	Qunnipiac	Link	1,022 RV (Nader given as an option)	3%	Bush	44%	Kerry	40%	Bush +4
3/29/04	Keystone Poll	Link	565 RV	4.1%	Bush	46%	Kerry	40%	Bush +6

Punditry: The Bush campaign is finding surprising resonance in Pennsylvania- surprising considering the difficulties in Ohio. One bit of caution though: while this poll represents a swing from a one point deficit for the President to a six point lead, this is entirely due to Kerry's support level dropping 7 points. Bush's support level in the Keystone Poll has remained constant. Strictly by the classes, I should be moving Pennsylvania into the "leans" designation, but I want one more poll to verify such a lead before I do. For now, Pennsylvania has a Slight Advantage for Bush.

---

Maryland

	F		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
3/24/04	Gonzales Research and Marketing	Link	825 LV	3.5%	Bush	43%	Kerry	48%	Kerry +5

Punditry: I said last time that the closeness in Maryland surprised me. I said that I suspected it was just an outlier (a poll that is the 1-in-20 that is outside the margin of error). I said that because of that, I would hold off reclassifying Maryland as a leaner until another poll verified the results.

Maryland now Leans for Kerry, and is perilously close to falling into the battleground territory.

Could this be an extension of the same effect I have noticed in New York and New Jersey? Could the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 be causing some normally Democrat voters to consider the President?

---

Summary Table

Effective National Popular Results: Bush 45.7%, Kerry 43.3%

Kerry E					F Bush
Safe	Strong	Lean	Slight	Tossup	Slight	Lean	Strong	Safe
MA (12)	DE (3)	OR (7)	NM (5)	WV (5)	NJ (15)	GA (15)	SC (8)	ND (3)
DC (3)	CT (7)	CA (55)	ME (4)	MI (17)	NH (4)	TN (11)	KY (8)	AL (9)
RI (4)	IL (21)	WA (11)	MN (10)	-	PA (21)	MO (11)	KS (6)	MT (3)
HI (4)	VT (3)	IA (7)	FL (27)	-	-	VA (13)	MS (6)	WY (3)
-	-	NY (31)	OH (20)	-	-	IN (11)	SD (3)	UT (5)
-	-	MD (10)	WI (10)	-	-	AR (6)	LA (9)	ID (4)
-	-	-	-	-	-	NC (15)	OK (7)	AK (3)
-	-	-	-	-	-	AZ (10)	-	NE (5)
-	-	-	-	-	-	NV (5)	-	TX (34)
-	-	-	-	-	-	CO (9)	-	-
Totals
Kerry States			Battleground States			Bush States
23	34	121	76	22	40	106	47	69
178			138			222

Discuss ECB2004 On Free Republic

---

Last week's quiz:

Which President was the first to employ a private polling service to advise him on election strategy and public policy?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

This week's quiz: According to the Gallup poll, which Presidential race featured the most lead changes from January through election day?

[Dales]

Thanks, got it up already.

[Clintonfatigued]

New York: New York can be divided into three regions. They are New York City, Long Island, and Upstate. Gore's 60% to 35% victory over Bush was a watershed. In history, only two Republicans have done worse than Bush (Goldwater in 1964 and Dole in 1996), and even then not by much. Gore won NYC by an amazing 77% to 18%, and won Long Island by 55% to 40%. But in upstate New York, Gore's victory was only 52% to 44%. Furthermore, upstate New York shows a tendency to support incumbents in Presidential elections. If Bush is to be competitive here, he must win big upstate. He shows no sign of trying to at this point.

[Clintonfatigued]

In Maryland, the 1988 election doesn't really count. Bush the elder's victory over Michael Dukakis was a fluke. Does anyone remember Willie Horton, the Massachusetts murderer/rapist who was allowed a furlough despite serving a life sentence? The people Horton brutalized while on furlough lived in suburban Baltimore, and lots of normally-'Rat voters swung to Bush because of that.

[Future Useless Eater]

impressive post.

Now, as for the VP choice, I think it is said that statistically the only real help a VP brings is an average of 1% additional popular votes in the VP's own HOME STATE.

So that suggests Kerry would prefer to pick a VP from one of those borderline battleground states that would just put him over the top.

Adding up the columns in the chart in post#1, up to but NOT including the TOSSUP column gives Kerry 254 electorals. (short of the needed 269)

But if he could win the tossup state MICHIGAN, with 17 electorals, he'd be over the top.

Which Michigander Dem is available and would boost the Kerry ticket the most?

[Clintonfatigued]

"(in 1916) While Wilson won North Dakota by less than 2%, the rest of the states decided by small margins went to (Charles Evans) Hughs."

Not entirely. That year, Hew Hampshire went to Wilson by only 56 votes. New Mexico supported Wilson by 2,375 votes and California, which decided the election, went for Wilson by 3,773 votes.

[MNJohnnie]

Um, I would only point out that Minnesota has a large MAJOIRTY Republican House and a Democratic Senate by only 1 seat, not an even split as suggested in the analysis. It also has a VERY popular REPUBLICAN Governor in Tim Pawlenty who balanced an almost $4 billion deficit WITHOUT raising taxes. Norm Coleman, a Republican Senator, won the state in 2002 by about 40,000 votes. In addition the State DFL leadership is from the kooky Moveon.org portion of the modern Democrat party which may not play well with the average working class voters in traditional Democrat strong hold of Northeastern Minnesota. I admit it is an uphill fight to carry a state for Bush that has not gone Republican since 1972 but consider this. Minnesota's unemployment rate is currently around 4.5% one of the lowest in the nation. The Minnesota Bush Campaign has all ready organized over 6000 precinct volunteers and has an organization in ever Minnesota country. I think Minnesota is in play this year.

[Dan from Michigan]

I mean Democrat as in partisan democrat. I doubt 94%(Actual number) of even San Francisco voted for Gore. Maybe 75%(about the same as Ann Arbor).

Although there isn't much of a Chomsky or "Barney Frank" wing of the dems in Detroit, it's all the union wing, Zogby Wing, and the Jesse Jackson wing there.

[jack gillis]

Even if you toss CT, I think the analysis still holds.

Massachusetts was hit hard. Not as hard as Jersey and NY, but hard. Let's say a straight 8% swing (4% of voters just flat switch votes). Doesn't dent the lead.

And I'm agreeing with your idea. But even a 15% swing in NJ and NY (and that's a big swing), won't switch those states.

What I'm suggesting is that the effect you identify may be real ... and exploitable by the GOP, but all it may do is change the popular outcome.

New Jersey might be closer, but close only counts in horseshoes.

[spokeshave]

Arnie delivered Prop 57 and 58 in California...squeezed $2.0B out of the teachers and looks like finessing the state unemployment benefits fiasco and getting some billions out of the gambling tribes..

And all Without Raising Taxes.

Could be Arnie can deliver CA also....but there needs to be some increased GOP spending on ads.

[TomEwall]

New registrations have been more Rep. The state is doing very well economically. Lieberman isn't on the ticket. Bush has been very pro-Israel. The hispanics, a group which is likely growing, is Republican. Kerry isn't a Southerner. The Rep grass roots organization, wary of what happened in 2000, is making a more conerted effort to get out the vote.

I don't think Kerry is expecting to much from Florida. Everything is pointing Bush's way there. His strategy, I think, is to take all the Gore states plus Ohio.

[TomEwall]

The polls are taken by different organizations with different methodologies on different dates. There are quite a few more Penn polls, and they are more recent. I think they can be believed a bit more than the Ohio polls, which I think will start showing Bush ahead. Gallop has shown a 7 point shift in Bush's favor nationally, and those results should start to be seen as more state polls come out.

[TomEwall]

I think that's unlikely, assuming it were that close. The following states were very close last time: Oregon, New Mexico, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Minnesota. All of these states went for Gore except Florida and New Hampshire. If Bush does better this time around in the popular vote, one would think that some the 5 states which went for Gore would go Bush's way.

[jack gillis]

Forget it.

First of all, Schwarzenegger took the immediate pressure off with a $15 billion bond issue that conservatives would have CRUCIFIED any Dem for proposing.

Second, on cultural issues, Arnold is further away from Bush than many Democrats.

Third of all, Arnold just today floated a trial balloon on tax hikes anyway, which were always inevitable.

Fourth, have you forgotten who Arnold is married too?

[jack gillis]

True.

But remember Dales' hypothesis: Proximity to Ground Zero is a hidden factor. ALL of those states you mention are far from Ground Zero and are currently polling the same or better for Kerry now as compared to Gore in 2000, except NH, which is the closest to Ground Zero (and there were numerous New Hampshiries on the ill-fated flights from Boston). (RealClearPolitics has those spreads in their state-by-state table).

If Bush does better only in the "Ground Zero" states, with maybe a little boost in a few Red states, he gains no EVs no matter how many more popular votes he wins.

[Political Junkie Too]

The states most directly and personally affected by 9/11 are Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, the District of Columbia and Virginia.

Don't forget Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. Dales just shifted Pennsylvania one category towards Bush.

-PJ

[jack gillis]

Yeah. We're pondering how PA fits in.

It didn't have the level of casualties the other states did, but it was involved and it was the one state race where a moderate Bush shift would change the outcome.

[Dales]

But even a 15% swing in NJ and NY (and that's a big swing), won't switch those states.

Gore only won Jersey by 16%.

And this time, fellow tri-stater Joe Lieberman won't be on the ticket.

I do think you are right, that this effect is likely to only manifest itself in the popular vote, since most of the involved states are too far gone.

But the more I am looking at things, the more I am starting to think New Jersey could be winnable. Just to pull a number out of my hat, maybe a 15% chance, if they spend the money to advertise and invest in a GOTV organization. That's a big if, and I am not sure where the break-even point is.

PS- any 9/11 effect on Massachusetts would probably be offset by it being Kerry's home state.

[Dales]

I stand corrected.

[Dales]

I would only point out that Minnesota has a large MAJOIRTY Republican House and a Democratic Senate by only 1 seat, not an even split as suggested in the analysis.

Here is what I wrote: "Minnesota's legislative seats are split right down the middle. Half of the Representatives, half of the Senate seats, and one of the state legislative chambers are held by each party."

I suppose it is less clear than I wanted, but when I said it's legislative seats are split down the middle, I am talking about it's US Congress legislative seats, not the state legislature. The only thing I said about the state legislature is that each party controls one chamber.

In the US Senate, there is Coleman and Dayton. In the US House, the Dems have McCollum, Sabo, Peterson and Oberstar to offset the Republican quartet of Gutnecht, Kline, Ramstad, and Kennedy.

Apologies for any lack of clarity.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Maryland:

Electoral Votes: 10

2000 Result:

Gore 57%

Bush 40%

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.

In Maryland, the 1988 election doesn't really count. Bush the elder's victory over Michael Dukakis was a fluke. Does anyone remember Willie Horton, the Massachusetts murderer/rapist who was allowed a furlough despite serving a life sentence? The people Horton brutalized while on furlough lived in suburban Baltimore, and lots of normally-'Rat voters swung to Bush because of that.

In other words, a single (if horrific) crime produced such terrible PR for Michael Dukakis in that specific state that the state went against its otherwise reliable party tendency.

Which goes to show that what national politics would be like if "objective" journalism were actually objective!