If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

Several people noticed that using the new interactive maps it is easy to produce a tie in the electoral college. In fact, if you look at the map for Aug. 6 and Bush wins Missouri, you have a tie. What is supposed to happen next is described on the Electoral college page, namely, the newly-elected House of Representatives chooses the president, with each state having one vote. To make it easier to see how that would come out with the current House, I have colored the Excel spreadsheet with the state data to indicate which party controls which state delegation. Currently the Republicans control 31, the Democrats control 14, and 5 are tied. While the Democrats have a chance to recapture the majority of seats in the House, they have no chance in the world to capture a majority of the state delegations, especially since a number of the states in the West have one or two (well-entrenched) Representatives. Thus if the electoral college is tied and the House votes, Bush wins. However, all is not lost for the Democrats. The Senate picks the Vice President, so if the Democrats pick up the two seats needed to recapture the Senate, we get a hybrid administration: Bush-Edwards. And don't forget, the Vice President's one constitutional power is to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. It could get real dicey.

And then there is the problem of faithless electors. How much does it cost to buy an elector? $5 million? $10 million? $50 million? Can they be auctioned off on E-Bay? Throughout history, there have been eight faithless electors, most recently in 2000. The problem also occurs if the electoral college score is Kerry 270, Bush 268. If one Kerry elector jumps ship it becomes a tie and the House elects Bush.

What does occasion amusement is the notion it would strike someone as newsworthy. Sorta rings of "But wait! Perhaps all is not lost after all! We might yet manage at least a partial victory if .... "

The current advantage seemingly shown by Kerry reminds me of Dean's juggernaught, and of course brings to mind the "substantial" Dukakis lead three months out from the general election, and of the optimism felt by Democrats going into the 2002 mid-terms.

The current advantage seemingly shown by Kerry reminds me of Dean's juggernaught, and of course brings to mind the "substantial" Dukakis lead three months out from the general election, and of the optimism felt by Democrats going into the 2002 mid-terms.

I believe there is little comparison to be found between the pre-election polling tracks of the Bush The Elder/Clinton matchup and the current contest, nor is there a substantive 3rd Party component this time around.

"near statistical certainty", eh? How do you figure that out? I mean, the phrase implies some objective calculations rather than mere punditry after all?

Campaign Journal
TNR

08.12.04

RECONSIDERING KERRY'S CONVENTION: Thursday revealed a lot about the state of the campaign. John Kerry tried to shift the conversation to his economic plan, delivering a speech -- "A Stronger America Begins at Home: The Path to Prosperity" -- in California and opening a two-week emphasis on the economy. Meanwhile, BC04 spent today criticizing Kerry for his recent statement about America needing to have a more "sensitive" approach to terrorism.

The dueling messages -- the economy versus the war -- are a reminder that for all the recent talk that Iraq has turned into a liability for Bush and that Kerry has made great strides in how voters view his approach to terrorism, the old conventional wisdom that Kerry needs the campaign to be about the economy while Bush needs it to be about national security has returned.

The shift in emphasis by Kerry suggests his campaign realizes that it may have missed an opportunity by making his convention almost entirely about strength and national security. Kerry's aides insist that there was no bounce available to him because of the polarized electorate, but other Democrats disagree. They point out that numerous polls show there is a majority for change in America. Whether one looks at the percentage who say the country is on the wrong track or the percentage who say Bush should not be re-elected, there are indeed enough voters looking for a new direction that Kerry should have had a bigger bounce.

The most persuasive proponents of this view are Stanley Greenberg and James Carville, who recently released a post-convention memo [PDF] bemoaning Kerry's missed opportunity. The duo note that "the small shift in the vote is disappointing" because "[w]e hoped the convention would have pushed up the Kerry vote at least to the proportion wanting change -- and then some more, reflecting the usual unreality of many voters momentarily taken with all the excitement and hope." They add, "John Kerry did not make broad gains from the convention." Furthermore:

Quote:

On personal and leadership attributes, few moved up more than a few points and some, like cares about you, remained constant. The convention did not diminish any of the negative attributes, like being too liberal, flip flopping and lack of clear ideas, and too ready to raise taxes.

On the issues, the number choosing Kerry barely rose on the economy (up 1 point), education (up 2), taxes (down 2), creating jobs in America (up 2), raising middle class living standards (up 2), and energy independence (no change).

The problem? Greenberg and Carville say Kerry overdid the whole military thing:

Quote:

We think that the bounce was contained largely because the message -- stronger at home and respected in the world -- is defined purely by the convention's focus on strength, military, security and foreign policy. That has shaped the electoral choice, as the regression model shows Iraq, foreign policy and hopefulness as the strongest predictors of the vote. But Kerry is even with Bush on Iraq and up only 4 points on foreign policy. While that is important accomplishment, leaving the message there also leaves Kerry short of the majority that is currently possible.

Kerry worked so hard to neutralize Bush's strengths that he moved the debate completely off his own most advantageous terrain. It's no coincidence that he is now working hard to move it back.

Greenberg and Carville's observations are backed up by data from a Pew Research Center poll [PDF] released today. It bolsters the case that Kerry should pivot to bread and butter Democratic issues. That is apparently the best way for him to reach swing voters.

According to Pew, swing voters have fairly caricatured views of the two candidates. By 51% to 17% swing voters think Bush can handle terrorism better, and by 44% to 24% they think he can handle Iraq better. Talking about these issues seems to be a losing proposition for Kerry. In addition, Bush retains his traditional advantage on character issues. He has big leads among swing voters on every character question Pew asked about, except whether he "cares about people."

On the other hand, Kerry holds lopsided advantages among swing voters on the economy (41% to 28%), education (49% to 23%), jobs (50% to 23%), and health care (52% to 17%). It's no surprise that Kerry is now trying to return to these issues while Bush is sticking to Iraq and questions of character. The campaign seems to have come full circle.

posted 11:32 p.m.

Originally written by Greenberg and Carville:
Kerry worked so hard to neutralize Bush's strengths that he moved the debate completely off his own most advantageous terrain. It's no coincidence that he is now working hard to move it back.

Kerry did the right thing.

COMING HOME: I noted a while back that recent polling by John Green of the University of Akron showed that despite a concerted effort Bush has done nothing to blunt the traditional Democratic advantage among Jewish voters. In Green's survey the sample size for Jews was actually very small, but a much larger poll out today by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research confirms that Bush has made no inroads. The numbers look almost identical to what VNS exit polls found in 2000. Here are the highlights:

---
Senator Kerry maintains a very strong lead over President Bush within the Jewish community. Senator Kerry leads President Bush by a margin of 75 percent to 22 percent. Senator Kerry's lead is as strong as the American Jewish vote was in 2000 for then-Vice President Gore over then-Governor Bush; respondents voted in 2000 for Gore over Bush by a margin of 76 percent to 21 percent.

** American Jewish support for Senator Kerry is extremely solid. Fully 78 percent of Kerry supporters indicated that there is "no chance" that they will vote for President Bush, while only 52 percent of Bush supporters are solid in their support.

** Jewish voters overwhelmingly agree with Senator Kerry on the issues--including on Israel and the war against terrorism. On the issue of abortion, for example, American Jews believe that Senator Kerry does a better job on the issue than President Bush by a margin of 85-15 percent. On the issue of the economy and jobs, respondents believe Senator Kerry will do a better job by a margin of 79-21 percent. Even on the issues of Israel and America's war on terrorism, American Jews overwhelmingly believe Senator Kerry will do a better job, both by a margin of 66-34 percent. Only 24 percent of respondents said they were closer to President Bush on Israel than Senator Kerry.

** President Bush is deeply unpopular among American Jews. President Bush is seen as favorable by only 20 percent of respondents; a stunning 73 percent see him unfavorably. Conversely, Senator Kerry is seen as favorable by 59 percent of the respondents, while only 27 percent view him unfavorably.

** An amazing 77 percent of respondents believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. The two greatest concerns of respondents are in the areas of the economy and jobs, and terrorism and national security--both areas in which Senator Kerry is strongly preferred by American Jews, according to this survey.
---

I'd say with the exception of their efforts to woo Jews, blacks, Hispanics, and Catholics, Karl Rove's and George W. Bush's strategy to bring traditionally Democratic groups into the Republican fold is going swimmingly.

posted 5:02 p.m.