Replies

While I don't think (yet) it will be a blowout, I think a Bush victory nearly inevitable due to simple math:

2) From the get-go, if he only won what he won in 2000, Bush would gain an additional 7 EVs and the Dem would automatically lose 7 EVs purely from redistricting. That starts Bush at 278.

2) Bush lost four states, if I'm not mistaken, by fewer than 30,000 total votes (NM, IO, WI, and OR). He lost NM by fewer than 5,000 votes---enough to demand a recount, which he did not do. Given a (even if slightly) growing economy, and the Dem alternative, I think Bush easily wins these four, giving him about 30 additional EVs, bringin his total to 308.

3) He has now nearly buried the Dem and not had to win one single truly contested state, such as PA, MI, or MN. Many observers think he will win two of those three. Add 40 more EVs to his total.

4) Now you come to the states where Bush can win, but where it would take a great deal of work and a little luck---NJ or MD, for example. These are not out of reach, and should one or two of these fall Bush's way, he is in the 350-370 range.

This is blowout territory. Note I'm still handing over to the Dems CA and NY, neither of which is a sure lock. And I'm throwing into the Dean column WA and VT.

In short, the math says that no matter who the Dem is, Bush destroys him or her. But wait!

Dean is a kook. When the American public starts to really listen to him, he will come off more like Pat Buchanan did on our side than a Dukakis, who didn't excite anyone. I think Dean will scare a number of people who aren't in love with Bush, and give him the 30 additional EVs Bush needs to cross the 400 "landslide" barrier.

Good analysis. Even if I don't agree with all our confident conclusions, it's the right issue. State by state electoral college analysis is what matters, and while loss of a lot of conservative base voters will hurt the totals, it probably won't be enough to change the vote in several of those states.

You didn't mention one thing, and on this even the news media has to be careful. If they hadn't called Florida (incorrectly) before the polls even closed, Bush would have won Florida by 10,000-15,000 more votes (based on Dr. Lott's analysis) in the panhandle. The key is: In those states that he won (your first assumption was that he'd retain those) is there any reason to believe he'd now lose? I don't think so. The corruption was virtually all on the Democrat side last time, and with Rove really running things, I expect he'll keep that down to no worse than it was last time. And in a fair vote, Bush wins at least in the states he won last time - most of them anyway. After that, he might very well pick up the additional states you mentioned.

Now you come to the states where Bush can win, but where it would take a great deal of work and a little luck---NJ or MD, for example.

Bush lost NJ and MD by about 16 percentage points. If he's winning states like this in 2004, that means he's got around a 64% approval rating, and he's on his way to a 45-state landslide.

Bush lost four states, if I'm not mistaken, by fewer than 30,000 total votes

While I agree that Bush is in good shape to contest a lot of the close states he lost in 2000, the margin of Gore's victories in some of these states is deceptively small. Ralph Nader got more than 5% in Oregon and Minnesota, and more than 3.5% in Wisconsin and New Mexico. I think we can safely assume that some of Nader's support will transfer to the Democrat in 2004, so Bush will have slightly more ground to make up there.