Projected Electoral College Vote--2004

[MavKikiNYC]

FIGHTING THE TAPE

Howard R. Gold is editor of Barron's Online. Fighting the Tape runs twice monthly.

Why the President May Be Running Scared

Projected Electoral College Vote, 2004?

THERE'S BEEN AN UNUSUAL DEFENSIVENESS at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue these days.

First came the report by chief weapons inspector David Kay that Saddam Hussein probably didn't have weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war. Under pressure, President George W. Bush appointed a commission to probe the apparent intelligence failures that preceded the war.

Then came the astonishing release of controversial records about the president's service in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War. The usually quiescent White House press corps was suddenly barking like a pack of attack dogs, demanding answers.

Meanwhile, Democratic primary voters, abandoning their usual self-destructive fractiousness, united early and have virtually anointed Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts as their nominee (see Fighting the Tape, "Democrats' Dustup Could Shake Up Markets," January 22).

Kerry and his straw man adversary, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, have had a clear field attacking President Bush's performance on Iraq and the economy.

So, it's no surprise that for the last three weeks, the president's approval rating has hovered below the key 50% level in a Newsweek poll.

But I'll bet none of this is what really keeps Karl Rove and the president's other top political advisers awake at night.

As we all learned in 2000, the only thing that really counts is the Electoral College.

Anachronistic as it might be, it's still the constitutionally mandated way of electing a president of the United States. And talk of repealing it after the 2000 fiasco went nowhere.

So, how does the electoral vote look as of today?

Well, Senator Kerry is clearly in the lead, and. President Bush could easily lose this election.

Barron's Online asked noted pollster John Zogby, president and chief executive officer of Zogby International, to lay out the electoral map as he sees it, based on various polls conducted throughout the country, including his own.

The table below spells it out: Senator Kerry is ahead in 18 of the so-called Blue states (including the District of Columbia), representing some 226 electoral votes.

President Bush leads in 21 of the Red states, with 176 electoral votes. A dozen more states, with 136 electoral votes, are considered "in play."

But if Zogby's current estimate holds, all the Massachusetts senator will need to do is take Ohio and Florida to pass the 270-vote threshold and win the presidency.

President Bush, despite his incumbency, would seem to have an uphill battle here, if things continue as they are now.

Why? Because only four of the states that we list as "in play" (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington) were Blue states in 2000, when they delivered a majority for Vice-President Al Gore.

The other eight states that are "in play" now (including Florida, Ohio, Arizona and Missouri), with a treasure trove of 98 electoral votes, were part of Bush Country in 2000.

That suggests the Democratic presidential candidate is holding his base of support better than the president is, allowing Senator Kerry to peel off a couple of the paler Red states from the president's column.

"National poll numbers are irrelevant," Zogby says. "What is relevant is how the president plays in the Red states, and how the Democrats play in the Blue states."

What's going on?

As we all know, the U.S. is a deeply divided country, whose fault lines are neatly defined by geography. The Northeast, industrial Midwest and California are true Blue. The Sun Belt, Corn Belt and Mountain States are deep Red. Everything else is pretty much in play.

"'E pluribus duo' is the operative word," says Zogby.

The divisions are economic, cultural and religious. Some 56% of Red state voters worship weekly, vs. 32% in the Blue states, Zogby notes. More than 60% of Red state voters carry a gun, as opposed to only 24% of Blue state voters.

Significantly more Blue state voters are unmarried, and more Blue state residents are likely to be under 30. Both of those groups are more likely to favor "live and let live" policies than more traditional-minded voters would. So-called "wedge" issues, like gay marriage, only reinforce those divisions.

But this year, two wildcards are at work -- jobs and Iraq.

The much-publicized "jobless recovery," the loss of more than two million manufacturing jobs and fears about outsourcing, which hits white-collar workers where they live, are cutting against the president in some key "swing" states like Ohio, which could be decisive.

Remember NBC's Tim Russert with his chalkboard in 2000, chanting, "Florida, Florida, Florida"?

This time, says Zogby, it may be "Ohio, Ohio, Ohio."

And even national security, an issue President Bush has owned since September 11, may be up for grabs. The failure to find WMD in Iraq has badly undermined the public's trust in him in that area, too.

A spokesperson for Bush-Cheney '04 did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

The president's campaign will hit back soon. It's reportedly ready to start spending some of its $150-million war chest on campaign ads. They will try to paint Senator Kerry as an undistinguished senator, an opportunist, weak on defense and, of course, a tax-and-spend liberal. And perhaps even worse.

At least some of that will probably stick. And a lot can happen in the eight months before the election. We may catch Osama bin-Laden. The economy may start producing a lot of jobs, and Americans in key swing states may start feeling more optimistic about the future.

"If they sense that we're on the right track and the economy is getting better, it's going to be hard to unseat Bush," says Hans Kaiser, vice-president for political affairs at Republican polling firm Moore Information, based in Portland, Ore. "It's tough to knock out an incumbent president."

But just 12 years ago, voters did knock out another incumbent President Bush whose approval ratings were at one point even higher than his son's.

That's why the electoral math as it stands today must be causing nightmares in the corridors of the West Wing.

[MavKikiNYC]

Link to table

[Mavdog]

The campaign really is just starting as the Bush team can now focus on one adversary-Kerry. His momentum seems to be too great for Edwards to stop...which is good for the demo party.

Much can (and will) happen between now and Nov. The economy, the stock market, Iraq, Bin Laden, North korea: any one of these front page issues going either direction will influence this election.

Start adding jobs, and those approval ratings will jump.
Stock prices tailing down and the confidence level in the economy will follow along with it.
Reduction in violence in Iraq will push the issue to the back page, or increase in activity/loss of soldiers and it's the headline.
A picture of Bin Laden in custody (dead or alive) and the election is a shoo in.
An accomodation (no Treaty says the WH) with North korea and the image of GWB as a leader gets reinforced.

What an interesting campaign this will be. These polls show just how close it really is. Smart money shouldn't underestimate the Bush team tho...incumbency has its priviledges (they hope for a better plan than "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier tho..)

[Drbio]

You know Mavdog......that is the first political post that you have ever made here that appears completely objective. The others have been riddled with liberal bias. I appreciate your understanding of party politcs and your effort to comprehensively review information regardless of your views (especially since you are wrong a lot [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] ) and it is nice to see an objective evaluation of the election.

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[MavKikiNYC]

From WSJ/Campaign Journal by Albert Hunt:

* * *
A LITTLE HISTORY: No knowledgeable politician in either party believes polls that show John Kerry with a big lead over George W. Bush now. The latest Gallup poll showed the expected Democratic nominee with a double-digit lead a few weeks ago.

A look at the Gallup polls at this stage over the last three decades suggests that eight months can be an eternity in politics. One note of historical disquiet, however, for the White House: the only other incumbent president to ever trail at this stage was Gerald Ford in 1976. He was behind Jimmy Carter by five percentage points; Mr. Carter ultimately won the election by two points.

In 1992, Mr. Bush's father had a 10-point lead over Bill Clinton in late February; he ultimately lost by more than five points.

There are occasions when little seems to change during that long election year. Double-digit leads at this juncture were enjoyed by Ronald Reagan in 1984, George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1996; all won handily. On one or two other occasions the February figures were inflated by events; in 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter, still riding public support during the Iranian hostage crisis, had almost a 2-to-1 lead over Ronald Reagan, but of course ended up losing the election.

Four years ago, in late February, George W. Bush was running ahead of Al Gore 52% to 43%. Mr. Gore bested him in the popular vote, but Mr. Bush carried the Electoral College and with it the presidency.

With the current president's huge financial war chest and the possibility of an improving economy between now and Election Day, it's a virtual certainty that he will cut the Kerry lead and probably at some stage be ahead in the polls. The country remains deeply divided among partisan lines and most experts anticipate another very close contest.