Electoral Vote Projections

[Kepler]

Take the 2000 map and switch NM and WI to Bush, and OH to Kerry. That's my current projection. Actually, I have a clear draw in MN and NH. I went ahead and awarded those to Kerry and Bush respectively, in tune with the 2000 result.

Edit: This projection becomes 269-269 if the CO ballot measure passes. Gulp.
Hard to see WI going to Bush -- IMHO that's one of those states that may dance with the opponent, but come November, it's safe (like CO on the other side).

NM, OTOH, could easily backslide.

[U2Bad1]

Hard to see WI going to Bush -- IMHO that's one of those states that may dance with the opponent, but come November, it's safe (like CO on the other side).

NM, OTOH, could easily backslide.

There is a difference between WI and CO. Bush won by about 8 points in colorado last election and in wisconsin gore won by a razor thin margin.

[Kepler]

Several more national polls are out (yes, I know they're meaningless compared to state polls), and we've set a new record for consecutive close results: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm

That's twelve consective polls within 5 points, the last six of which have been within 3 points.

Bush's latest job rating is so low that I hafta believe it's an outlier: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm The 43/48 approve/disapprove is the lowest rating since late June. Gallup/CNN polled over roughly the same time period and got a 47/49 -- that sounds more reasonable.

The Congress numbers are steady: http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2004.htm which means either (1) the Dems really will pick up Congressional seats, (2) Dems routinely outpoll Republicans nationally even with a 50/50 Congressional split, due to district voting distributions, or (3) national Congressional polls are meaningless. I'm leaning towards a mix of (2) and (3).

Here's http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Electoral%20College%20Table.htm a nice summary of the Rasmussen state polls that I had never seen before. Clicking on a state name brings up the Rasmussen poll for that state. Of particular interest:

MO: Bush 51-45 (10/7)
FL: Bush 51-47 (10/4)
OH: Bush 48-47 (10/3)
PA: 47-47 (10/2)
WI: Bush 49-46 (10/1)
MI: 46-46 (9/30)
MN: 46-46 (9/26)

Those last 4 polls are pre-debate, and I would expect that they've shifted 4-6 points in Kerry's favor by now.

Finally, the latest round of Strategic Vision polls has pushed Tripias' default result wildly toward Bush: 291-247: http://www.tripias.com/state/ Strategic Vision is the GOP equivalent of Democracy Corps -- a polling outfit for party candidates. If you go to Tripias' custom view page http://www.tripias.com/state/custom.html and exclude the Strategic Vision polls you get Kerry 277-266. Truth is somewhere in between.

[Red Cloud]

Hard to see WI going to Bush -- IMHO that's one of those states that may dance with the opponent, but come November, it's safe (like CO on the other side).
It's easy if you try. WI was very close in 2000. It calls itself the "swingiest of the swing states." Bush has led in the polls there for several weeks now.

[Rover]

It's easy if you try. WI was very close in 2000. It calls itself the "swingiest of the swing states." Bush has led in the polls there for several weeks now.

Actually Bush led in polls before the debates. He's at best even now from what I've seen, and that's discarding both pro GOP (Strategic vision) and pro-Dem (Lake Snell Perry) polls.

[Red Cloud]

Actually Bush led in polls before the debates. He's at best even now from what I've seen, and that's discarding both pro GOP (Strategic vision) and pro-Dem (Lake Snell Perry) polls. From what I'm looking at, he's "at best" 3 or 4 points up.

[Rover]

From what I'm looking at, he's "at best" 3 or 4 points up.
I've seen several polls (Zogby, American Research) that have Kerry up. I'd be willing to call it even at this point, and expect the Democratic tilt of the state to pull Kerry through much like the GOP tilt of Colorado will most likely keep that GOP.

PS - Your guess is as good as mine, but I'm surprised you're looking at New Mexico to flip. With an influx of Hispanic voters since 2000, people who by all accounts outside of Cuban-Americans in Florida vote Dem, I'd figure that would be harder for Bush to win this time.

[Kepler]

It's easy if you try. WI was very close in 2000. It calls itself the "swingiest of the swing states." Bush has led in the polls there for several weeks now.
Still not easy for me; I must not be trying. Or I have an assumption that Northeastern and Great Lakes undecideds are going to slide disproportionately (60/40, not 90/10) to Kerry while Southern and Western undecideds are going to slide disproportionately to Bush. Therefore, NM and OR concern me much more than WI and MN.

I have not a clue about IA. It's the weridest state in the union, IMHO. I have no idea why it isn't as solidly red as KS or NE.

[Nathan]

I have not a clue about IA. It's the weridest state in the union, IMHO. I have no idea why it isn't as solidly red as KS or NE.
Blame the Nordic sentiment.

Seriously, those individuals of Nordic descent have a tendancy toward liberal and progressive politics. Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin have a large Nordic contingent, okay maybe a bit more than large. It's not surprising that they have traditionally voted Democrat. What is surprising is the influx if evangelical Christianity and it's tendancy to move these states toward the Republicans.

[Todd]

I've seen several polls (Zogby, American Research) that have Kerry up. I'd be willing to call it even at this point, and expect the Democratic tilt of the state to pull Kerry through much like the GOP tilt of Colorado will most likely keep that GOP.

PS - Your guess is as good as mine, but I'm surprised you're looking at New Mexico to flip. With an influx of Hispanic voters since 2000, people who by all accounts outside of Cuban-Americans in Florida vote Dem, I'd figure that would be harder for Bush to win this time.If the Bill Richardson (v. popular D-Gov.) factor doesn't help Kerry win NM, he's in for a very tough day in early November.

[Nathan]

Some Midwestern Polls:

IOWA (Gore won in 2000 by 0.3 percentage points)
Market Shares Corp.-Chicago Tribune, Oct. 9-11, 500 LV, MoE +/-5
-George W. Bush, 47 percent
-John Kerry, 45 percent
-Ralph Nader, 1 percent
-Unsure, 7 percent


MINNESOTA (Gore won in 2000 by 2.4 percentage points)
Market Shares Corp.-Chicago Tribune, Oct. 9-11, 500 LV, MoE +/-5
-John Kerry, 45 percent
-George W. Bush, 43 percent
-Ralph Nader, 2 percent
-Unsure/Other, 10 percent


OHIO (Bush won in 2000 by 3.6 percentage points)
Market Shares Corp.-Chicago Tribune, Oct. 9-11, 500 LV, MoE +/-5
-John Kerry, 49 percent
-George W. Bush, 45 percent
-Undecided/Other, 6 percent


WISCONSIN (Gore won in 2000 by 0.2 percentage points)
Market Shares Corp.-Chicago Tribune, Oct. 9-11, 500 LV, MoE +/-5
-John Kerry, 47 percent
-George W. Bush, 43 percent
-Ralph Nader, 2 percent
-Unsure, 8 percent

[Bob Gray]

If the Bill Richardson (v. popular D-Gov.) factor doesn't help Kerry win NM, he's in for a very tough day in early November.
Bill Richardson is hardly a very popular governor. He's viewed by many in New Mexico as only using the governor's office as a stepping stone to higher office and he is legendary for his arrogance toward people who question what he does. Of course he does have some people who like him, but he's not the type of person to look to for coattails.

[Red Cloud]

Still not easy for me; I must not be trying.
I think that was supposed to be a Lennon reference. The original, I mean. :)

[Rover]

Nathan,

Thanks for the update. I always believed Ohio was the most likely state to flip to the Dems of any. Florida has a popular GOP gov (you know who) and a reasonably good economy. Ohio has an unpopular GOP gov, a bad economy, and a strong Dem get out the vote machine with the unions. I'll say again, if Bush is even in the polls going into election day, I don't know if he can overcome the higher turnout in union households. He also IMO can't win the election without Ohio, because to do so less conservative and GOP leaning states like Minnie and Wisconsin would have to go his way. If he can't win Ohio, how does he take the other two?

[Todd]

Bill Richardson is hardly a very popular governor. He's viewed by many in New Mexico as only using the governor's office as a stepping stone to higher office and he is legendary for his arrogance toward people who question what he does. Of course he does have some people who like him, but he's not the type of person to look to for coattails.Interesting to hear that perspective. I had heard that he was very popular. I'm not sure what you mean by "higher office" as he was in Congress already - unless you think that Governor is better than Congress as a stepping stone when going for Senate or President. Even if that's true, I don't think that's really a slam as many, if not most, politicians see their current job as short-term and are looking to move up to the next rung.

Doing some basic research, there's the following from his website (http://www.governor.state.nm.us/NewRichardsonbio.html) (which will of course be supportive):
Governor Bill Richardson was elected Governor of New Mexico in 2002 by the largest margin of any candidate since 1964. During his first year in office, Governor Richardson made good on his campaign promises to improve education, cut taxes, build a high-wage economy, develop a statewide water plan and make New Mexico safer by getting tough on DWI, domestic violence and sex crimes. Governor Richardson is continuing to move New Mexico forward in 2004, working to improve access to quality health care, implement an ambitious school reform plan and make the state a leader in renewable energy and clean energy technologies.

Governor Richardson served for 15 years in northern New Mexico representing the 3rd Congressional District. Governor Richardson served in 1997 as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and in 1998, he was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. Governor Richardson was nominated four times (1995, 1997, 2000, and 2001) for the Nobel Peace Prize.Largest margin in about 40 years? Seems pretty popular to me...

Of course, if "legendary...arrogance toward people who question what he does" makes a candidate unpopular, then Kerry won't have to worry much about Bush anyway. (Sorry Kepler, it was low-hanging fruit. I couldn't stop myself.)

[Kepler]

I think that was supposed to be a Lennon reference. The original, I mean. :)
And I'm so tired I literally stared at the screen for 15 seconds until I figured that out. It didn't help that I first read it as a "Lemmon reference." I'm thinking, "what the heck does Felix Unger have to do with this...?" :D

I agree with the poster that Bush needs to have some breathing room on election day. Late switchers generally favor the challenger, and in OH at least the grassroots vote drive favors the Dems -- look at what happened in MI in 2000. I'm thinking the non-southern swing states inside of 2% go to Kerry on election day, and it's starting to look like there may be a fair number of those.

I can't imagine the Dems taking FL. If that happens, obviously Bush is dead.

[pgb-ohio]

Blame the Nordic sentiment.

Seriously, those individuals of Nordic descent have a tendancy toward liberal and progressive politics. Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin have a large Nordic contingent, okay maybe a bit more than large. It's not surprising that they have traditionally voted Democrat. What is surprising is the influx if evangelical Christianity and it's tendancy to move these states toward the Republicans.The ethnic composition of these states is a factor. If you look at the governmental policies of Norway, Sweden, etc. you do get some clues as to where the Upper Midwest is coming from.

With regard to Evangelical Christianity, influx is a well chosen word. Some of the increase in this sentiment can be traced to new residents who brought their social conservatism along with them. This factor may apply more to Minnesota than to Iowa, but it's probably relevant around the region.

To really understand Iowa, though, you have to take into account its strong loyalty to the family farm. Even people that are generations removed from the old homestead still self-identify with farming, and the values associated with it. Many voting decisions will be based on what's good for the farmer. To the extent that the farmer is seen as "the little guy," in need of protection from corporate interests, that may mean voting Democratic -- even if such a vote conflicts with other preferences the voter holds.

Finally, it is important to realize that farmers and ranchers are two distinct sets of people. While both groups live and work in the country, their political concerns are often quite different. The ranchers of the Mountain States gave us the sagebrush rebellion. The farmers of the Upper Midwest had little or nothing to do with this.

The states of the Great Plains, like Kansas and Nebraska, seem to look westward politically. That's not too surprising; geographically these states sit between the Midwest and the Mountain States, and have things in common with both. But there's no particular reason to think that Iowa *should* vote like a Mountain State.

[SurfCityRed]

Nathan,

Thanks for the update. I always believed Ohio was the most likely state to flip to the Dems of any. Florida has a popular GOP gov (you know who) and a reasonably good economy. Ohio has an unpopular GOP gov, a bad economy, and a strong Dem get out the vote machine with the unions. I'll say again, if Bush is even in the polls going into election day, I don't know if he can overcome the higher turnout in union households. He also IMO can't win the election without Ohio, because to do so less conservative and GOP leaning states like Minnie and Wisconsin would have to go his way. If he can't win Ohio, how does he take the other two?

I think you're right. If it comes down to a single close state, Ohio is the Florida of 2004. Bush has been consistently ahead in the Florida polls for some time, but Ohio has been flipping back and forth. With its 20 EVs, either candidate is going to have an uphill climb to win without Ohio.

[Jason A]

A poll released today shows Bush leading Kerry, 46.2%-44.6%, in Arkansas.

http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1004/180302.html

[unofan]

Not to get into a geographic debate, but the Great Plains is a part of the Midwest, not separate from it. If anything, I consider Nebraska and Kansas more midwestern than Ohio.

The way I see it, The Midwest encompasses everything between the Appalachians and the Rockies and north of Texas/The Ozarks. Within the Midwest you have the Great Plains, the Rust Belt, and the Great Lakes regions.

As far as voting habits go, you are correct that Iowans assoc. themselves with the family farm. But even there there is a lot of geographic distribution. Western Iowa and Iowa State associates itself with Omaha and tends to lean more Republican than the eastern half and the U of Iowa, which lean Democratic. The fact that Iowa's population is spread pretty evenly (Des Moines is smaller than Omaha even though Iowa has something like 2-3x's as many people as Nebraska) also makes it tougher for it to reach a consensus.