I’ve been crunching numbers for some time, using Real Clear Politics‘ poll averages (which you can see here) to try to determine the shape of the race for the popular vote in the 2004 election.
What has become clear is that the President has seen a steady and strong rate of growth in terms of poll averages, while Senator Kerry has seen some growth, but not enough to catch up. Since the post-convention period the race has been volitile, and the polls have swung wildly, but the President has retained his advantage over Senator Kerry when these shifts are smoothed out. Earlier I had posted a trendline showing this pattern, and that trendline has remained steady.
Barring any major change in the race in the following week, President Bush will win reelection by a relatively solid margin of 3 percentage points against Senator Kerry.
Based on these long-term trends as well as recent polling that shows similar numbers, my official prediction for the popular vote in 2004 is President George W. Bush – 49.5% to Senator John Kerry – 46.5% with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5%. Based on the polls I am quite confident that President Bush has a strong enough margin to carry the popular vote.
However, it is important to note that a victory in the popular vote does not mean the President will be reelected. It remains beyond crucial that every Republican, especially those living in swing states, get to the polls and show their support for the President. This election may well hinge on turnout in several key states, which is why it is important to ensure that Republican turnout is as high as possible and that every Republican do their civic duty in going to the polls and helping to ensure a safer and more properous country.
Is this the extent of your predictions? If so, I’m disappointed. I was hoping for a state-by-state numbers game. By the way, you should consider looking at the latest Rasmussen poll numbers. I know you’ll dismiss them as the mythical pro-Democratic Sunday advantage, but since you’re accepting Zogby’s Sunday numbers trending towards Bush as legitimate, you’ve pretty much negated that case. With every poll moving in converging directions (last Friday you were all about Rasmussen….which I doubt you continue to be), it’s very hard to say who has a clear advantage here. There are a disproportionate number of GOP outliers factored in to RCP’s poll average (as compared to only the AP poll for Kerry) that I believe the average is skewered right. I have predictions of my own to make, but I’ll hold off until I see if you’re gonna produce any more detailed predictions than a random three-point Bush advantage.
The state polls aren’t quite stable enough for my EC prediction yet.
Rassmussen’s numbers are likely due to the weekend sample. They consistantly show weaker performance for Bush on weekends, so that’s no surprise. Zogby’s numbers are inexplicable, but they do match with previous polling. In a tracking poll you’re drawing from different samples, so there will be some variation. That’s why you work with poll averages rather than individual polls.
RCP averages all national polls, and the (horribly flawed) AP poll was the only recent poll showing Kerry ahead. The overall poll average remains largely unchanged. (In fact, Bush had been slightly ahead of my predicted trendline recently.)
Finally I get around to asking a question that has been on my mind for a long time. Jay, you mention here explicitly that a victory in the pop vote may not mean reelection for the President. And if I am not mistaken, Gore did win the pop vote, but not the presidency. So here is the question:
What are the reasons for sticking to the traditional system with the electoral college, rather than having the people determine directly who will be Prez? As a matter of fact, many of my friends in Germany asked me this question, and all I could come up with was to give them the historical background and then point out to “it’s the tradition.” I am kinda thinking that there should be more salient reasons than that. How would you, Jay, or anyone around here, argue in either defense of the old ways or in favor of rewriting the rules here?
Janek
It has to do with the population density in certain states. With a straight popular vote someone could win the Presidency without even stepping foot in a state like Colorado or Missouri. They could win by only representing the populous coastal states like New York and California and not even bother anywhere else. The Electoral College ensures that in a race like this, a state like Wisconsin or Iowa could become a swing state that recieves far more attention and consideration than it ever would elsewise.
It’s similar to the reason why we have a House and a Senate – the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that the interests of the large states could be held in check by smaller ones.
Janek, there’s no good reason for it at this point. It was devised 200 years ago as a way of forcing candidates to travel far and wide to campaign in areas that otherwise would be ignored. Of course, this was a time of limited population and crude means of transportation. Today, candidates can fly on an airplane and campaign in Orlando and Seattle on the same day. The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness and has centrallized the political discussion in a dozen or so “battleground states” that represent less than a third of the overall population, thus reducing the rest of the electorate to colonial outpost status…the people who get the crumbs. Unfortunately, it would take a lengthy trendline of inaccuracy before there will ever be a serious push to get rid of the Electoral College. Even though the EC permanently reduces smaller states to political flyover country, it also gives these small states an artificially inflated representation in the overall numbers game of how Presidents are decided. For instance, if California was represented proportionally to states like North Dakota and Wyoming, it would have 161 electoral votes instead of 55. Thus, smaller states are unlikely to want to get rid of the Electoral College, even though their size ensures they are unlikely to ever be visited by a Presidential candidate or be in a position where they can have any influence over national policy.
Without the Electoral College a state like Iowa with just under 1% of the US population would never so much as see a Presidential candidate. Whereas because of the EC, this year both Kerry and Bush have been there several times.
To borrow from Churchill, “the electoral college system is probably the worst possible method of choosing a President – except for all the others.”
Thanks to the two of you.