Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush looks cool for 2004 election
New York Daily News ^ | 11/12/03 | Zev Chafets

Posted on 11/12/2003 4:57:26 AM PST by kattracks

According to the latest Newsweek poll, President Bush would beat any Democratic candidate in a head-to-head contest. He leads Howard Dean 49% to 45%, and he's ahead of the other major Democratic contenders by similar margins. This is interesting - and meaningless. As we were rudely reminded in 2000, the winner in a presidential election is the guy who gets the most electoral votes.

Last time, Bush beat Gore 271 to 266. Next time, he'll probably defeat his opponent by a much wider margin.

There are various reasons to think so. The economy is strong. The Democratic field is weak. Bush has a great deal of money and the advantages of incumbency.

And then there's air conditioning.

As everyone knows by now, the nation's population is shifting from cold states to hot ones. As it does, the electoral balance of power moves to the air conditioning belt.

Do the math. The Electoral College consists of 538 votes. That figure doesn't change. Neither does 270 - the number needed for victory.

What does change is the division within the college. That's what happened after the 2000 census. Electoral votes were reapportioned in line with population growth. Some states got stronger, some weaker. The gains were almost entirely in the Red States, won by the GOP in 2000. Losses were mostly in the Blue States that went for Gore.

New York, for example, has gone from 33 electoral votes to 31 since the last election. Connecticut has dropped from eight to seven. Pennsylvania, another Blue State, is down to 21 from 23. In all, Blue States have lost seven electoral votes.

What the Democrats lost, the Republicans have gained. Texas, Florida and Arizona each got two additional electoral votes. Altogether, Red States are up by seven.

Suppose Bush wins only these states again in 2004. Last time out, he beat Gore 271 to 266 (there was one abstention in Washington, D.C.). This time, those same states would make the margin of victory a comfortable 278 to 260.

If the election were held tomorrow, that's probably how it would turn out. According to Matt Smyth, an election watcher at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, Bush is ahead in every state he won in 2000 - and behind in every one he lost.

Obviously this could change by next November. But judging from the recent GOP gubernatorial victories in Kentucky and Mississippi, as well as the endorsement of Bush by Georgia's Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, the air conditioning belt remains cool to Democrats.

The Dems know this, which explains Dean's attempt to wrap himself in the Confederate flag. But the Democrats are currently marching under the banners of tax increases, partial-birth abortion and internationalism. Conventional wisdom holds that the party will steer to the center after the primary season. But the damage will be hard to repair.

Bush, on the other hand, has a decent chance in many of the Blue States. If Iraq goes all right, the economy stays good and the Democratic nominee doesn't rise above Mondalehood, the President could take Michigan and Pennsylvania, Arnold-era California and maybe even post-GOP convention New York.

But even without any upsets, Bush should be reelected easily by following a simple formula: Ignore the polls, concentrate on the Electoral College and make sure the air conditioning stays on high between now and next November.

Originally published on November 12, 2003



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; gwb2004; polls

1 posted on 11/12/2003 4:57:27 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This article is silly. There is only one candidate Bush needs to be polled against, and that is the Democrat party's presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton.
2 posted on 11/12/2003 5:00:35 AM PST by Lazamataz (PROUDLY SCARING FELLOW FREEPERS SINCE 1999 !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Lazamataz
But wait, Laz. The point that the democrats' base is rusting away is a good one. A few election cycles ago, and the red states would have been insufficient for 271 electoral votes.

My nightmare scenario is that Bush Carterizes himself with demand-side tax cuts and that Hillary walks into the White House in 2008.
4 posted on 11/12/2003 5:35:31 AM PST by mywholebodyisaweapon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bush has alienated a large chunk of his core of support on the gun issue. Is it really so much that "Bush looks cool," or is it that the Dimocrats are just so darn lame?
5 posted on 11/12/2003 5:39:27 AM PST by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dales
The Electoral College consists of 538 votes. That figure doesn't change. Neither does 270 - the number needed for victory.

What does change is the division within the college . . . after the 2000 census . . . Electoral votes were reapportioned in line with population growth. . . . The gains were almost entirely in the Red States, won by the GOP in 2000. Losses were mostly in the Blue States that went for Gore.

. . . Altogether, Red States are up by seven.

Suppose Bush wins only these states again in 2004. . . .

According to Matt Smyth, an election watcher at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, Bush is ahead in every state he won in 2000 - and behind in every one he lost. . . .

Last time out, he beat Gore 271 to 266 (there was one abstention in Washington, D.C.). This time, those same states would make the margin of victory a comfortable 278 to 260.

I doubt the Democrats do anything like as well, running against tax cuts during a recession and against victory in Iraq, as they did when Bush wasn't an incumbent. And there were some mighty close decisions Bush lost in places like NM . . .

6 posted on 11/12/2003 5:41:13 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
The gains were almost entirely in the Red States...

This has also been happening around the country within states. There's a tide of businesses moving within CA, for example, from the high-tax 'blue' counties to the more conservative 'red' counties.

7 posted on 11/12/2003 5:46:23 AM PST by WileyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
.." large chunk of his core of support on the gun issue"

And just where did you find the statistics to support this claim?

8 posted on 11/12/2003 5:47:28 AM PST by gramho12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It is unreasonable to think that Bush would not carry New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and probably Oregon even if the election were held today without any other changes. Don't want to go to the electoral map page, but I think those four states alone are good for about 30 more electoral votes. That makes it 308-230.

The shift of just ONE "blue" state of significance (PA, MI, NJ) and you are looking at blowout territory. The shift of two and it's a landslide.

9 posted on 11/12/2003 5:48:23 AM PST by LS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destructor; All
"Bush has alienated a large chunk of his core of support on the gun issue. Is it really so much that "Bush looks cool," or is it that the Dimocrats are just so darn lame? "


What?! EVERY pollster has the President holding approximately 90% of the Republican vote -- more than Reagan!

BTW: Guns are not an issue at this point and Hastert/Delay will NOT allow guns to become an issue! [THE issue for the blue states is our foreign and domestic war on terror!]
10 posted on 11/12/2003 7:56:25 AM PST by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DrDeb
Guess you missed the poll on Free Republic yesterday. This particular poll said that voters aren't exactly enamored with W, but they aren't about to vote for one of the "nine dwarves" (Dimocratic nominees).
11 posted on 11/12/2003 10:16:21 AM PST by Destructor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Destructor
I don't miss ANY of the polls -- I moniter them all for both personal and professional reasons!
12 posted on 11/12/2003 1:28:20 PM PST by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson