I have been watching the polls that say that if the election were held today that Kerry beats Bush by this many and Edwards beats Bush by this many. There is a serious flaw in that arguement. Overall Popular votes don't mean diddly squat in the general election, just ask Al Gore. It is electoral votes that count. Many of you may recall that I took a look at the electoral trends for the last several elections and was able to draw only the conclusion that it was going to be pretty darn close. In that model I used Dean as the nominee but it really was based on trends than any single individual. If we revisit the contents of that thread and use John Edwards electoral "game board" http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/ (thanks John) we can try and predict who has the better chance of beating George Bush, based purely on party affiliation and the home state factor. Is it simplistic , hell ya it is. If I wanted to write a dissertation I would have stayed in school... Here we go. To keep the data recent I looked at elections from 1972 -2000. I wanted to see of there is a trend in state voting to try and predict what we might see in 2004. So here is the data: States were graded on a scale of strong trend, moderate, lean, and toss up. There are not a lot of surprises when looking at Strong Republican states: Alabama Alaska Idaho Indiana Kansas Mississippi Nebraska North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Texas Utah Virginia Wyoming These states voted at least 87.5% of the time for the Republican Candidate and 11 out 16 voted for the Republican candidate in every Presidential election since 1972. These states should give Bush 135 electoral votes. The following are states that strongly trend towards the Democratic Candidate: Wash. D.C. Hawaii Massachusetts Minnesota Rhode Island That’s it! 33 electoral votes that can be considered as a lock for the Dems; although only D.C voted 100% of the time for the Democratic candidate. Another trend that became apparent was that there are several Moderate Republican trended states and NO leaning Republican states, while there were NO Moderate Democratic states and several leaning Democratic states. The states that will most likely go to Bush are: Arizona Colorado Florida (I got my eye on this one, he he) Montana Nevada New Hampshire These states deliver 58 probable electoral votes to Bush. Since there are no leaning Republican states this brings Bushes total to 193. States that lean to the Democratic side, especially in the last 4 elections are: California Connecticut Delaware Illinois Iowa Maine Maryland Michigan New Jersey New Mexico New York Oregon Pennsylvania Vermont Washington Wisconsin So, I the Dems were to win EVERY state that leans Democrat, they would pick up 227 electoral votes. Obviously this will be a daunting task, but trends do sway in his parties favor. So with the score now 193 Probables to a solid 33 plus an iffy 227, Dems would lead Bush 260 to 193. NOTE: The trends that I have listed and the electoral map that the Edwards site has planned out are IDENTICAL to this point. Here are the “toss up” states: Arkansas: Normally republican, this state shifted with Clinton but in 2000 went back to Bush. It really should be considered at least a leaning Republican with its 6 electoral votes. JE agrees. Georgia: a 37.5 - 62.5 Republican trender that voted or Dole and Bush in the last two elections. 15 electoral votes there. Although the original study says it is a toss up stat, I tend to disagree again. JE agrees. Kentucky: another 37.5 to 62.5 to the Repubs. Went with Clinton twice then back to Bush. 8 more votes for Bush? I tend to think so. JE agrees. Louisiana: See Kentucky. Same voting record. Another 9 for Bush. JE agrees. Missouri: Same damn thing. Another 11 for Bush. JE agrees. Ohio: Déjà vu all over again. 20 here. JE agrees. Tennessee: Ask Al Gore about this one: Same voting record as the others in this list. 11 votes. JE agrees. West Virginia: OK, here the trend goes the other way, 62.5% for Dems, 37.5 for Republicans. But Bush won West Virginia in 2000. I'm gonna change this from a push to Bush. 5 votes here. JE agrees. With the 80 votes leaning to Bush, that brings his electoral total to 278. 270 are needed to win the election. Sounds like a repeat of last year’s performance. One other factor to consider in these “swing states: The following states: Arkansas Kentucky Louisiana Missouri Ohio Tennessee All cast votes for the eventual winner in EVERY election since 1972. So watch these states, they will most likely choose your next President. UPDATE: So according to the JE for Pres website electoral map Bush wins. BUT, what is the Kerry is the nominee. He wins all the abovementioned for Dems and his home state... wait, they already have Massachusetts. It's pretty much a lock. John edawrds was born in South Carolina and moved and was raised in North Carolina. BOTH are listed as Republican strongholds. If we give just North Carolina, Edawrds home state to him he wins the election. 275-263. Is that a given that Edwards can carry his home state? Hell no. See Al Gore 2000 in Tennesee. Oh well, just makes you think I guess. My curiousity is satisfied for now....
One big thing that boosts Edwards in this comparison is that all the swing states are South or Midwestern. Kerry's New England background is not going to help win those... Edwards' southerner status might.
Excellent work Mulder. Very interesting stuff! I wonder if Edwards has enough to overtake Kerry now that things are pretty much one-on-one between the two. They may tear each other up pretty badly, or they may form a secret alliance and take it easy on each other to make sure the Democratic ticket vs. GWB is as strong as possible. I like Edwards over Kerry personally, but electoral votes wise I would want to see Kerry get the nomination
if they can have a nascar race on the day of the election, all day long, maybe the dems might have a chance in the southern states. also, do you think the terror alert will be high for those days?
Who knows, maybe it will rain all day Halloween Sunday and Monday? November 2, 2004 General Election Day 10/31/04 Bass Pro Shops MBNA 500 Atlanta Motor Speedway NBC/12 p.m. PRN/12 p.m.
As I've said before, If the Dems win the states they won in 2000. All they have to do is win MO. which barely went to Bush in 2000, and has lost a lot of jobs... more than the national average. W. VA will also go Democrat this year, and it's quite possible that New Hampshire will as well. None of those are southern states, and that will give the dems enough electoral votes to carry the election.
excellent work Mulder. I've said many times that the elctoral math works against the democrats right now- nice to see JE agrees! There are some interesting projections at this site. He gives Bush 300 EV. the methodology is not the same, but he's skewed at as negatively as possible for Bush and still W wins. skip the "21 reasons" part, which is just partisan posturing. the rest seems pretty compelling.
excellent work Mulder. I've said many times that the elctoral math works against the democrats right now- nice to see JE agrees! There are some interesting projections at this site. He gives Bush 300 EV. the methodology is not the same, but he's skewed at as negatively as possible for Bush and still W wins. skip the "21 reasons" part, which is just partisan posturing. the rest seems pretty compelling. I'm not so sure about the quality of that site ... In December, he had Bush winning the electoral college 467-71. His "polling" system is also based simply on 2000 results +/- some formula weighing national approval ratings, more or less. It doesn't really look at states individually. Perhaps it has some merit, but I don't see it. It basically takes the 2000 results, see that's Bush had a positive approval rating and thus adds about 2-3% for Bush in every state. So all the swing states become Bush and that's the end of that.
This is why I think Gephardt may be the VP candidate. He's so beloved in Missouri that he may be able to carry the state. If everything else stays the same and Missouri switches, it's a Democrat to the White House.
300 electoral votes does seem awfully likely for Bush. With victory assured, Republicans can take a well-earned rest on Nov. 2 and just let the Dem saps trudge to the polls. Poor Dems... living a false hope that it might make a difference in the face of all these brilliant analyses predicting an overwhelming victory for Bush. Oh well, I guess we still have to play the game.
I wonder how legitimate this information is from that same site??? 11. Redistricting President Bush has gained a small yet concrete advantage heading into the elections this year. Red states in 2000 netted Bush 271 electoral votes. This year those same states would give him 278. In other words, he could lose a state like New Hampshire, Nevada or West Virginia and win anyway. Even losing a larger state such as Louisiana or Colorado would produce a 269-269 tie. http://www.electionprojection.com/essay1.html
Personally, if certain people actually celebrate the fact that the electoral college can overcome the total popular vote, I think that speaks volumes. I would hope that nobody, from any segment of the policial spectrum, could be happy about such a screwed up predicament. "Who cares what the majority wants!" has a disturbing ring to it.
dude, i grew up in the missouri bootheel, i can assure you gephardt ain't loved through out the state. his district is in st. louis, the most democratic part of the state.
basso, don't try to extinguish the few rays of hope (weak as they may be) to which the liberals cling! Just allow the naive liberals to dream their wild fantasies. We shall indulge in victory in November with rejoicing and festivity!
the founding fathers might disagree with you. the electoral college is one reason why we live in a federalist society, not necessarily a democratic one. it assures that a candidate has to be competitive through out the country, not merely new york, california, texas and florida. flyover land matters.
Don't be too sure about Florida. IMO this will be a major swing state. There are some seriously pissed off Jewish and black people. Otherwise very interesting reading Mulder.
Yes, yes, the founding fathers. I do know the story, and it's a fine and sensible reply. Did the founding fathers celebrate instances where the E.C. and the total popular will were in opposition? "Boy howdy, that'll be fun! Yee-hoo!" I would hope we can all at least agree that whatever happens in 2004, it's best for all of us if the two aspects are aligned, with the E.C. reflecting bulk popular will. We need better unity, if that's possible, after the November dust settles. So I hope the winning candidate has persuaded as many total voters as possible, and not simply a majority of the E.C. It'd be good for the nation.
