 |
|---|
| Nevada |
| Electoral Votes: 5 |
| 2000 Result |
| Bush 50% |
| Gore 46% |
Posted on 02/19/2004 5:27:12 PM PST by Dales
Edited on 02/20/2004 4:04:38 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
Due to popular demand, I am going to revive my poll tracking and analysis that I did during the 2000 election season. I will be starting things a bit differently this year. Instead of starting off with a comprehensive overview of the entire nation, I am going to start by looking at five states at a time. For this third installment, the random state generator presented me with Nevada, Missouri, California, South Carolina, and Florida.
| |
|---|
| Nevada |
| Electoral Votes: 5 |
| 2000 Result |
| Bush 50% |
| Gore 46% |
Background: Since 1964, Nevada has gone Republican every Presidential election except for the two victories by Bill Clinton, both of which were by very small margins (margins which were 1/9th the size of the Perot vote). Most of the other elections were comfortable wins for the GOP.
Polling Data:
| Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/9/03 | Mason-Dixon | Link | RV | 4% | Bush | 51% | Unnamed Democrat | 23% |
| 10/28/03 | Magellan Research | Link | RV | 4% | Bush | 32% | Unnamed Democrat | 23% |
| 12/3/03 | Southwest Group | Link | RV | 4% | Bush | 50% | Unnamed Democrat | 34% |
| 2/13/04 | SurveyUSA | Link | 505 RV | 4.5% | Bush | 49% | Kerry | 48% |
Punditry: Don't get too excited over that July Mason-Dixon poll, as the phrasing of the question was such that only those who definitely were going to vote Democrat regardless of nominee ended up in that column. The Magellan Research poll didn't have the same bias but was phrased in a way that encouraged people to choose undecided by phrasing it "I will evaluate all candidates,including those from third parties, and choose the candidate that best represents my views." That kind of phrasing is bound to drive up the undecideds. Currently, this state has a Slight Advantage for Bush.
 |
|---|
| Missouri |
| Electoral Votes: 11 |
| 2000 Result |
| Bush 50% |
| Gore 47% |
Background: Considered by many to be a bellwether state, Missouri has gone Republican in every election after 1964 except for three. Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford by a small, four point margin. Bill Clinton won the state twice, but both times relied on Perot taking double digits (over 20% in the first). From 1968 on, the only Democrat to break 50% in Missouri was Carter, and the only Republican to fail to get 50% absent a truly strong third party candidate was Ford.
Polling Data:
| Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/9/03 | Research 2000 | Link | 600 LV | 4% | Bush | 49% | Dick Gephardt | 39% |
| 1/29/04 | Research 2000 | Link | 804 LV | 4% | Bush | 45% | Unnamed Democrat | 40% |
Punditry: As with most states, Bush has seen the Democrat challenger(s) surging with all the publicity they are getting during the primaries. Still, this battleground state is one that is more favorable for Republican Presidential candidates than most people realize, and Bush still holds the lead by a few points. This is a state Bush must hold, as it will be difficult to imagine that Missouri would fall without other dominos falling as well. For now, this state Leans for Bush.
 |
|---|
| California |
| Electoral Votes: 55 |
| 2000 Result |
| Gore 53% |
| Bush 42% |
Background: On a three election streak for the Democrats, California has a reputation as a liberal bastion. While Gore did handle Bush easily in 2000, the fact is that the reputation may not fit the data on the Presidential level. Only three candidates have broken 53% in California since the 1964 landslide. Al Gore last time, homestate icon Ronald Reagan in his re-election campaign but not his first election, and Richard Nixon in his re-election campaign but not his first election.
Polling Data:
| Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8/16/03 | Field | NA | RV | 4% | Bush | 42% | Unnamed Democrat | 47% |
| 8/16/03 | Public Policy Institute | NA | LV | 3% | Bush | 40% | Unnamed Democrat | 45% |
| 1/3/04 | Public Policy Institute | Link | LV | 3% | Bush | 45% | Unnamed Democrat | 45% |
| 1/13/04 | Field | NA | RV | 3.4% | Bush | 46% | Unnamed Democrat | 47% |
| 1/18/04 | Rasmussen | NA | LV | 4% | Bush | 41% | Unnamed Democrat | 46% |
| 2/13/04 | Knowledge Networks | Link | RV | 4.1% | Bush | 38% | Kerry | 42% |
Punditry: Last election cycle, Bush thought California was in play, yet he got slaughtered. It turned out that the money and time he spent at the end of the campaign here could have and should have been spent in Florida and Michigan. But the territory here is not as hostile for Republican candidates as perception would indicate. A real advantage for Bush is that he will be able to use his position to gain free media exposure in this state which is extremely expensive for advertising. If by appearing for some official business with the Governator, Bush causes the Democrats to have to counter with advertising, that will be a huge factor elsewhere. For now, California Leans for the Democrats by the numbers, although it is awfully difficult to resist the perception that it should be listed as strong.
 |
|---|
| South Carolina |
| Electoral Votes: 8 |
| 2000 Result |
| Bush 57% |
| Gore 41% |
Background: Jimmy Carter, from neighboring Georgia, won this state. You have to go back to JFK to find another Democrat who was able to do it. Most of the time, it was not all that close although Carter did make it close against Reagan too; the fact that a neighbor was able to twice make the state competitive (and once win it) means that the state will merit more attention should Edwards win the Democrat nomination.
Polling Data:
| Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7/28/03 | Hickman Research | Link | ? | ? | Bush | 52% | Unnamed Democrat | 36% |
Punditry: While I do think Edwards topping the ticket could make SC more interesting, I don't see it stopping the state from remaining part of the Republican solid south. The same holds true if he is the VP nominee, only more so. This state has a Strong Advantage for Bush.
 |
|---|
| Florida |
| Electoral Votes: 27 |
| 2000 Result |
| Bush 48.85% |
| Gore 48.84% |
Background: Despite the best efforts of the results-oriented Florida Supreme Court, Bush held on to win the state in 2000, just as every recount conducted afterwards validated. Did you know that since 1948, though, that only three times has Florida gone for the Democrat candidate? Johnson got 51%, Carter got 52%, and Clinton (2nd term) got 48% (with Perot taking 9%). More times than not, the Republican has come closer to 60%. Why Bush underperformed here to such a degree is something his campaign must rectify.
Polling Data:
| Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/29/03 | Mason-Dixon | Link | LV | 5% | Bush | 53% | Unnamed Democrat | 38% |
| 12/3/03 | Schroth & Associates | Link | 800 RV | 3.5% | Bush | 43% | Unnamed Democrat | 37% |
| 1/15/03 | Rasmussen Reports | Link | LV | 5% | Bush | 47% | Unnamed Democrat | 45% |
Punditry: It was a battleground in 2000, and it will likely be one again in 2004. It probably should not be, though, and Bush would do well to figure out exactly why he cannot connect with the Florida voters the way his brother can and does, and the way past Republicans have. This state has a Slight Advantage for Bush.
| Summary Table | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bush | Democrat | ||||||||
| Safe | Strong | Lean | Slight | Tossup | Slight | Lean | Strong | Safe | |
| ND (3) | CO (9) | GA (15) | NV (5) | - | NM (5) | CA (55) | - | VT (3) | |
| AL (9) | SC (8) | NC (15) | FL (27) | - | ME (4) | - | - | MA (12) | |
| MT (3) | - | MO (11) | - | - | - | - | - | DC (3) | |
| Designation Total: |
15 | 17 | 41 | 32 | - | 9 | 55 | - | 18 |
| Candidate Total: |
78 | 41 | 73 | ||||||
| Undesignated electoral votes: 351 | |||||||||
Next installment: Wyoming, Delaware, Utah, Virginia, New York
Historical election data are located at Dave Leip's invaluable website.
Installment One
Installment Two
As to your predictions, there is a long haul coming so while time will surely tell, it'll be many months.
YAY !!!!!!! Thank you so much for your hard work. It will be great again as it was before. :-)
I knew how to spell it correctly, but didn't know the etymology. Thanks!
Dale -- thanks for the poll summaries. My gut tells me this is Bush's election to lose, and I have great confidence in his ability to win it. No way will this election be a replay of 2000. What I'm more concerned with is RNC "plans" for 2008 and beyond.
Florida, will likely go to Bush. Likely, is an understatement. The Democrats only had a voice there due to voter fraud. I look forward to the 2004 Bush Florida landslide.
The real contests will likely be in the sparsely populated States, such as S.Dakota. I think that once again, New Hampshire, will be the pivotal State. New Hampshire made all the difference in 2000, but you did not hear that on CBS, or the other Networks! They are hiding the truth.
Russert said just days before the 2000 Election "watch Florida," and he is a player, and a Democrat Rat. This year, all eyes, will be on New Hampshire. It is that close in the eyes of the Rats. In truth, the Rats are dead, and they are delusional.
New Hampshire, will again make the Electoral difference. New Hampshire made the difference in 2000, and Florida, though significant, was not the true field of battle. Look at it again. New Hampshire, is the real test.
Do the Math!
Yep. His analysis in 200 was amazing.
I will probably start up my tracking poll compilation threads that I did in 2000 sometime in sept./oct. time frame when they all start doing the three day tracking.
I didnt think it was a mystery... Florida was in play in 2000 because the Jewish vote went for Gore heavily thanks to "joementum" on the ticket.
That factor wont be there, moreover Bush's actions on the economy and on war on terror should increase that vote, plus the democrats have fallen a few notches, plus military and space and increase in hispanic vote support imho all point to an easier time in Florida. It wont be in play unless kerry puts bill nelson on the ticket. JMHO.
Oh, Neets? Could you add Jack Gillis to the ping list? He requested it a while back by mail. Thanks for all you are doing. :-)
South Carolina should be ours easily, as it's usually the most GOP of all the Southern States.
Nevada, Missouri, and Florida are all in play.
I agree with you 100% on Missouri. A strong rural turnout for Bush will ice Missouri. He won over 55 counties by 20% or more there.
The only problems there really are St. Louis(77%) and Kansas City(72%). Other than that, Gore only won the counties of Pemiscot, Mississippi, St Louis County, Ray, New Madrid, Jefferson, Buchanan, Ste Genevieve, Boone, Washington, Saline, and Clay. Bush won the Jackson County burbs and needs to hang on there. St Charles, Greene, Cole, Jasper, and the rural areas need a big turnout since those were big Bush wins.
Nevada scares the hell out of me with Yucca Mtn. Bush won all the counties outside of Clark(Vegas) here, and it was still close. Gore got 52% in Clark County.
And Florida will be down to the wire again, IMO. The good news is that Gore only won 15 counties. The bad news is that they included the 4 biggest(Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Pinellas.) Orange, Volusia, Pasco, and Leon are big counties as well.
Bush needs to improve his margins in the rural counties as well as the big GOP areas like Duval(Jacksonville), Escambia(Pensacola), Lee (Ft. Myers), and Collier(Naples). The Tampa area is a big swing area as well.
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.