Looking at the numbers for a minute

[womzilla]

There are several electoral vote calculators out on the web. A good graphical one can be found at Grey Raven, about which I know nothing. However, the java applet there has information on the electoral college results for every US presidental election, and allows you to play with the numbers for this year's election.


Last month, someone reported on rasff about a New York Times Sunday Magazine article about how the states are currently trending for November's elections. While Rutherford Bush has a lot of support nation-wide, it is concentrated in several states that are solidly in his camp. Likewise, the as-yet-undecided dDemocratic nominee likewise has several states that are almost certain to go for him (sorry, Ms. Mosely Braun). Other states can be called, at this point, "likely Bush" or "likely Democratic". The list given on rasff is this:

Solidly Bush: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Delaware.= 173 votes.

Likely Bush: New Hampshire, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisana, Nevada, and Arizona.=108 votes.

Solidly Democratic: Hawaii, California, New York, New Jeresy, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Washington D.C., and Illinois.=165 votes.

Likely Democratic: Maine, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.=92 votes.

This breakdown leads to a Bush victory of 281 to 257, a 24-point victory.

Here's a screen shot of the Grey Raven app. "Solid Bush" states are in red, "Likely Bush" in yellow, "Solid Democratic" in blue, and "Likely Democratic" in green:



You might also want to play with this java-based map of the US where the states' sizes are adjusted to reflect the number of EC votes they represent. The huge swathes of low-population-density pro-Rethuglican states is misleading on a map which shows states at their geographic size; those eleven tiny blue states on the map above represent about one-third of the population of the US, while those 21 large red states represent about 10% fewer people (though more EC votes thanks to the affirmative action program for low-population states).

Another map is on the John Edwards Campaign Page. It defaults to showing the states that Bush won in 2000, plus Florida, in red, and the states that Al Gore won, except Florida, in blue, with the vote totals updated to reflect the 2000 census to give Bush an 18-point lead. With this map, you can throw the election to the Democrats by just flopping any state with 10 or more EC votes, or get a tie with a 9-vote state like Louisiana. Unfortunately, a tie means a near-certain Bush victory.


The summary: Right now, this is not a landslide for the incumbent. The likely breakdown is a Bush victory by a larger margin in the electoral college than he got in 2000 after stealing Florida's votes. However, the 2000 election showed that Florida is up for grabs, even with vast amounts of skullduggery both organized and spontaneous arrayed in his favor. If the Democratic candidate can carry all the states he's currently projected to win, plus "Likely Bush" states worth 13 or more electoral college votes, the Democrats win. There are two states that would do it by themselves--Florida and Ohio--and a lot of combinations of two states that would do it--Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee each have 9 to 11 votes.

The New York Times article pointed out that no Republican has ever been elected president without winning Ohio, so that seems certain to be one of the big battleground states. The incredibly stupid steel tarrifs that were enacted in 2001 were blatant pandering to Ohio, Michigan, and other Rust Belt states, but they didn't generate enough votes and Bush recinded them. The Democrat might well be able to use that against Bush to win Ohio.

The battle is an uphill one. But it isn't Pickett's Charge. Please remember that every time the SCLM declares the election decided before November. And if you haven't registered to vote yet, please go do so.

Comments

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Great post. Is there a link to the NYT magazine article? How do they fit the states in each category? Polls, election results, what?

Your point on Ohio is well-taken. It reminds me of arguments about Dems and the South (i.e., Democrats can't win unless they win the South). What happens if Democrats lose the South but win Ohio? Does Ralph Nader become president, or something? (As you can tell, I find Dems-Need-the-South polemics unconvincing.)

I'd still bet on a Bush win, based largely on economic trends and his popularity in the party. (Those two factors historically determine the outcome.) You give me hope, though, that the Dems can put up a good fight.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

I was not able to find the Times article, which is why I didn't cite it.

I think the economy is still sour for most people. Joblessness is still increasing; even though the economy is finally creating jobs again, it's doing so more slowly than the population is growing, and most of the increased wealth is, surprise surprise, concentrated in the upper 1% of the population. The average American is still much worse off than she was in 2000, and this is particularly true in the Rust Belt. I think that the Democrats could win Ohio easily if they can just get people to concentrate on their wallets, which is usually not a challenge.

Remember, for most people who aren't political wonks, the Democrats haven't even started campaigning yet. Their message isn't out at all.

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

The economy may still suck, but we still have a year to go, and indicators suggest an upward trend. (This isn't surprising; 1% interest rates and giant deficits can do wonders in the short term.) Jobs, even if they're lousy ones, should come soon. Most of the gains may go to the well-off, but unfortunately those are the people who vote. And in my experience, short term economic trends (am I better off now than last year?) are more important than long-term ones (am I better off than I was four years ago?).

The election is still a year away, and the Dems may come out on top. The odds are against us, though. Still, it looks like the Democrats will put up a good fight.