Sabato's Crystal Ball in '04: Bush 278 Electoral Votes, Democrat 260...

Center For Politics ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

Beltway Boys Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracki had Larry Sabato on their show this weekend. He presented this projected Electoral Map for 2004. What do you think? Is he right? Sabato did say if the election were held today, Bush would probably get 330 Electoral votes. He thinks this is what it'll look like in November of '04, though. Any thoughts?

[Torie]

No, Washington doesn't like mush-mouths, particularly if they are airbrains like Edwards. or weirdo idiosyncratic sui generis hawks like Graham.

[StriperSniper]

Lieberman magically can carry Florida...

I think that would assume Graham as the VP pick. That would make sense, I couldn't see anyone else in the line-up that would be a natural second to Lieberman.

I have to dig a little deeper to find out Sabato's reasoning though.

d - Thanks for the links, that's what I was looking for too.

[AntiGuv]

Washington has over 8% unemployment, and is likely to have close to 10% unemployment by Nov 2004. The bursting of the "New Economy" tech bubble has hit Washington even harder than California, and those jobs ain't coming back anytime soon - at least not to Washington. Finally, Boeing's Seattle operations are swiftly getting moved elsewhere, even aside from the fact that Boeing itself is struggling in its commercial manufacture departments.

You can bank on Washington voting against Bush unless he takes at least 54% of the vote...

[Torie]

Thanks for the input. I don't think the 2004 election will be about the economy, particularly after all the action of this week, and assuming the stock and real estate markets continue to chug along OK.

[William McKinley]

I think the Rendell effect is going to help Bush in Pennsylvania in 2004. Rendell has tried to raise every tax imaginable. He has even suggested taxing doctor visits.

Sabato's analysis here is sophomoric. In the 'unnamed Democrat' projection, where he has Bush winning barely, it is exactly the 2000 results except for Arkansas. Somehow, I doubt that things will go that similar. I don't think in the history of the nation has there been two consecutive Presidential elections with that low a number of states (one) going different directions. It just won't happen.

And I also think that going with the status quo is really silly in the election following the tumult of the 2000 elections followed by 9/11, especially when the 2000 election was so close thanks to some last minute sleaze (the DUI story) and concerns over Bush's experience level.

Too much has changed for the next election to be that similar to 2000. It will never happen.

[AntiGuv]

The 2004 elections may very well not be about the economy on a nationwide level, but they will near certainly be about the economy in Washington State. In 2000, Washington had as low as 4.2% unemployment; in 2003, Washington currently has 7.3% unemployment (sorry, it's Oregon with 8.1%). Whatever the stock & real estate markets might do nationwide (within reason), it's not going to make much difference for Washington. (Seattle, BTW, is one of the few places that's experienced a real estate bust). We shall see.

[Pubbie]

"it's not going to make much difference for Washington. (Seattle, BTW, is one of the few places that's experienced a real estate bust). We shall see."

I was under the impression that Gov Locke was taking most of the heat about the economy in Wa state.

[Torie]

So why is the real estate market picking up in Oregon with an 8.1% employment rate? I know it is, because part of my real estate "empire" is in Portland. I will have to check realtor.com as to Seattle, and see what the asking prices at least are in the neighborhoods I once checked out in detail back when, and thus know well.

[staytrue]

I believe your map is identical to what actually happened in 2000 except the effects of the census was included.

[Cicero]

It's far too early to make any such projections. Bush will sweep the elections UNLESS there's an economic meltdown--which is certainly possible. Even then he might succeed in winning, because so far people don't blame him for our economic difficulties, despite the media's best efforts.

[ALS]

[OldFriend]

General Clark will be the veep candidate.

[AntiGuv]

I was under the impression that Gov Locke was taking most of the heat about the economy in Wa state.

That's my impression as well. Washington is quite likely to elect a Republican governor next year if the rest of the nation is clearly in recovery and Washington is not. Then, the burden of blame will fall on the state administration rather than the national economic situation. However, if the rest of the nation is still undergoing an anemic recovery - much less if it's in recession - then Washington is likely to reelect a Democrat, because the electorate leans Democratic & the burden of blame will fall on the national economic mismanagement.

Whatever the case, when people are confronted with the question - "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" - Washington's answer will be a resounding no, by all indications. According to unemployment projections, Washington is expected to peak as high as 8.5% - and that's assuming economic growth & corporate earnings pick up nationwide. Who is going to hire anytime soon in Washington? Boeing would rather get out; Microsoft has no apparent expansion plans; the tech industry overall is consolidating; Washington's service sector is considered overstaffed; and it's regulatory scheme unattractive.

In a presidential election, people usually blame or applaud the president for their local economic situation, regardless of whether he has any responsibility for that whatsoever.

[OldFriend]

Agree on Minnesota, their new repub governor is doing a great job.

[AntiGuv]

So why is the real estate market picking up in Oregon with an 8.1% employment rate?

Because real estate development is so tightly regulated in the Portland & Salem areas.

[Pubbie]

"In a presidential election, people usually blame or applaud the president for their local economic situation, regardless of whether he has any responsibility for that whatsoever."

It sounds to me like you're economic situation is already worse than the rest of the nation is today.

I think Locke will get the blame because I'm very sure the nation will have decent economic growth for the second half of this year and into 2004 IMO.

[AntiGuv]

It sounds to me like you're economic situation is already worse than the rest of the nation is today.

My personal economic situation is exceptional, and likely to improve even further, because I know how to invest even an economic meltdown...

I think Locke will get the blame because I'm very sure the nation will have decent economic growth for the second half of this year and into 2004 IMO.

That's besides the point, because people are perfectly capable of directing their blame at multiple targets, simultaneously. The difference for Bush will be whether he needs a 54% nationwide victory to take Washington, or a 57% nationwide victory, or a 52% nationwide victory (under a most optimistic scenario). Bush will lose Washington in a "highly competitive" election, I guarantee you...

[Pubbie]

"Bush will lose Washington in a "highly competitive" election, I guarantee you..."


Fortunately, Bush doesn't need Washington.

I was mainly hoping for a competetive Senate Race, but, fortunately again, there are other, more promising seats to take in '04

[AntiGuv]

Fortunately, Bush doesn't need Washington.

That is correct, in my view. Unless the economy plunges, Bush should win at least 40 states - including Washington - with at least 54% of the nationwide vote.

I was mainly hoping for a competetive Senate Race, but, fortunately again, there are other, more promising seats to take in '04.

Yep, quite true again.

[Dan from Michigan]

Wisconsin

You think Wisconsin too? I don't know. Reason being the 1-2-3 punch of Dane, Milwaukee, and The whole Iron Range area on Lake Superior(From Ironwood MI to Duluth MN).

Oregon I think depends on a strong Green. I think Washington is almost out of reach with the tech job losses.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Minnesota are three of the toughest for me to predict. Anything can happen there.