VodkaPundit shows some interesting predictions for the Electoral College vote in 2004, including political science guru Larry Sabato’s prediction of a narrow Kerry win.
My best guesses at the Electoral College vote for 2004 are virtually identical to the vote in 2000, with only New Hampshire going to Kerry from the 2000 Bush column. That gives Bush 274 electoral votes to Kerry’s 264. However, this race is extremely tight. If Bush loses Nevada the election becomes a 269-269 tie. If Bush loses Arizona, Florida, or Ohio, he’s sunk.
Although something tells me that Kerry is going to drop off before then and this election may not be as close as the evidence points to right now. I don’t think Kerry’s going to get much of a convention bounce, he’ll lead Bush by at least 5 points, but it won’t be much more, and it could be less. If I were going to grab a number out of my posterior I’d say Kerry will be up by 7 by the end of this week and into next. By the GOP convention, it will be back down to a rough parity with Bush.
August is Bush’s month – he can spend all he wants while Kerry cannot. The expectation is that Bush will use this time for negative advertising – I don’t think so. Look for him to shore up his own image with positive biographical ads before the GOP convention in New York. I think Bush will get a considerably larger convention boost than Kerry will, and I think if Bush can make this issue a referendum on terrorism and social issues, the election will break decisively in the President’s favor.
Then again, at this point, it’s anyone’s game. Anything could happen between now and Election Day, and this election could come down to just one key state and a few thousand or even hundred votes. Then again, I (and most everyone else) predicted a Howard Dean sweep in January, so this election could yet have a few surprises…
I agree that Kerry’s post-convention bounce will not be substantial. Your prediction of a seven-point lead seems a highly likely outcome. It’ll depend alot on the quality of his speech tomorrow night.
I won’t discount your premise of a strong August for Bush, but it seems to be based on blind faith more than any sound reasoning. Why is Bush gonna be able to spend a fortune and Kerry not? In case you haven’t heard, Kerry has been topping Bush in fundraising for the last few months. Shortage of campaign dollars doesn’t seem like a serious problem for Kerry at this point.
To win the Electoral College, I would say Bush almost has to peel off at least one Gore state from 2000 because I see very little chance of Ohio repeating their mistake of four years ago. Gore abandoned Ohio two months before the election, yet still came within three points of victory, scoring victories in several Republican-leaning major counties such as Franklin County (Columbus) while receiving extremely soft support in blue-collar places like Steubenville which have since plunged into economic depression mode. Bush nearly lost Ohio even though the Democrats ignored it and before Ohioans had a financial incentive to reject the Republicans. With Kerry practically living in the badly-battered Ohio of 2004, I would be very surprised to see him fail to secure Ohio’s 20 electoral votes shortly after the polls close.
I’m not prepared to say Kerry has an advantage in Nevada, but if Kerry is fierce enough in reminding Nevadans of Bush’s nasty lie about storing nuclear waste in their backyards, it becomes very hard for swing voters there to justify casting a ballot in Bush’s favor. The electoral map favors a modest Kerry win at this point….and I think his campaign will really have to implode for him not to achieve it.
Because Kerry chose to recieve federal funds, which means that he can’t begin to use those funds until after August, as well as accepting stringent limits on advertising. Basically, Kerry has put himself out of the race for a month.
He won’t be out of the race. He’ll be off of TV commercials. And I think people are already tiring of the political ads and won’t be really listening to any of them.
I think the race is Kerry’s to lose. He’s hit exactly the right centrist message for the convention, which I assume will continue, and I fail to see how Bush is going to be able to sway any of the undecideds. He has been a very strong, resolute leader that has inspired intense feelings on both sides of the aisle, which means if you don’t like him now, you’re probably not going to pick it up in the next couple of months. Bush also has not really governed for the center, so I think any attempt to portray himself as a moderate will fall flat.
If Bush loses Nevada the election becomes a 269-269 tie.
What will be the procedure if this actually does happen? Has there been a case like that in history? Are there any rules regarding such a situation?
Sorry, forgot to enter my personal info. The above anonymous post was from me.
What will be the procedure if this actually does happen?
Hrm, I wonder if maybe the very document that laid out the organization of our government and the election of our officials might be able to shed some light on that?
Chet: Janek is German, so snapping at him for not knowing the ins and outs of the US Constitution is simply rude. I’m sure he knows more about the US system of government than you (or I for that matter) know about the German system. Don’t be an asshole.
Janek: In answer to your question, if there’s a tie in the Electoral College the House of Representative decides the election. Although, the only time this has happened was in 1876, and that ended up being decided by a committee of 7 Senators and 7 Representatives being led by a judge. Of course, in that election the neutral judge was replaced by a Republican judge, and eventually the Democrat agreed to concede the race in exchange for the removal of federal troops from the South. (Ending the post-Civil War occupation of the South).
1876 was the most screwed-up election in US history, even more than 2000 was – hopefully 2004 will be much more stable.