Let's Talk Sense...
Saturday, September 30, 2000 Volume XXV, No. 30
Roswell, New Mexico
In this issue:
Who's Going to Win?
--------Part 3-------
Electoral College Analysis---
State-by-state
· Electoral College Watch
· The West-------SWEEP! Bush Crowd Goes Wild
· The Pacific----SWEEP! Gore Crowd Goes Wild
· Electoral College Recap
· Where Does This Leave Bush?
· My Projections
· In the next issue:
· Previous Issues
Electoral College Watch
Nothing new to add regarding the focus of Bush2000. We can only
hope. If money is not going to the true toss-up states, it should
be. By now, in this---the 7th report on the Electoral College this
year---you know which ones they are. They are not based on polls,
but on the peoples' voting habits, demonstrated over the past 15
years, and re-validated during the 90s.
The West
SWEEP! It's Bush, 100-0 !
Bush wins the West, everything from the Great Plains states of the
100th Meridian through the Rocky Mountain states, plus Alaska.
Bush wins by landslide margins in 12 of the 15. He prevails in South
Dakota by a clear, if less than overwhelming margin. In Nevada,
Bush claims the Silver State for the GOP for the first time in 12
years. Nevada is the home of America's wildest population growth,
which has made for a volatile and uncertain electorate over the
past decade. It is also one of those states where Perot voters tended
to be Republican presidential voters by about a 3-2 margin. The
absence of a Perot, or Perot substitute (and no, neither Nader,
nor Buchanan, nor Browne, Hagelin, or anyone else fits the bill
for these voters) bodes well for Bush in Nevada.
[NOTE: This is not to endorse the widely held (especially among
conservatives) but false notion, that Perot "cost Bush the
election in 1992." That tale is plainly and clearly untrue,
and can be easily demonstrated mathematically, as we have done (LTS...Feb
94). However, there were some states which Bush, the elder, almost
certainly lost (Georgia and New Hampshire) and others he probably
lost (Montana, Nevada and Ohio) because of the nature of the Perot
voter found in those particular states in 1992.]
It is in New Mexico, long the most liberal in presidential voting
of all the Rocky Mountain states, where the most closely contested
race in the West is taking shape. Clearly, much hinges on the oft-cited
inroads Bush supposedly has made in the Hispanic vote. Increasing
his share of the New Mexico Hispanic vote from Dole's 27% to the
mid 30s would be significant. Nader is likely to come close to doubling
his 1996 total of more than 13,000. This will hurt Gore some, though
not nearly as much as the conventional wisdom holds. The New Mexico
Green voter is not now, nor has he or she ever been, an automatic
Democrat fallback voter----a myth almost as goofy as the "Perot
beat Bush" story.
More troubling for Gore, among Hispanics and Anglo Democrats is
the eight-year record of radicalism on the part of the Bureau of
Reclamation, the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land
Management and the US Forest Service (as well as the entire Department
of the Interior). The Clinton-Gore Administration has ruthlessly
and doggedly---at huge taxpayer expense---sought to grab control
of every drop of water in New Mexico. They have attacked the major
surface water sources, and have their eye on the state's limited
aquifers. All this while doing a terrible job of watershed management.
Their approach in New Mexico is overbearing, condescending and contemptuous.
They protect nothing-----not even the minnows, (and other species)
whose names provide the pretext for their raids on the water. It
is all about exercising power, and more and more New Mexicans are
becoming aware of it. By election time there will be just enough
New Mexicans who understand that four more years of this kind of
ruthless, mindless, truly radical aggression will destroy much of
New Mexico's capacity for commerce, agriculture and habitation.
Bush will eek out a narrow victory.
The West (15 states---100 electoral votes)
Texas (32), Oklahoma (8), Kansas(6), Nebraska (5), South Dakota(3),
North Dakota(3), Montana(3), Wyoming (3), Colorado(8), New Mexico(5),
Arizona(8), Utah(5), Idaho(4), Nevada(4), Alaska(3)
39 days out, this is the way we see it:
(Popular vote, in 000's)
State |
Bush |
Gore |
Nader |
Buch. |
Others |
Total |
Texas |
3,638 |
2,426 |
62 |
84 |
30 |
6,240 |
Oklahoma |
717 |
552 |
----- |
22 |
9 |
1,300 |
Kansas |
652 |
434 |
11 |
18 |
5 |
1,120 |
Nebraska |
407 |
266 |
15 |
5 |
7 |
700 |
S. Dakota |
160 |
146 |
----- |
6 |
3 |
315 |
N. Dakota |
145 |
114 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
270 |
Montana |
205 |
177 |
16 |
8 |
4 |
410 |
Wyoming |
123 |
77 |
----- |
7 |
3 |
210 |
Colorado |
797 |
692 |
69 |
31 |
11 |
1,600 |
New Mexico |
265 |
264 |
24 |
12 |
5 |
570 |
Arizona |
715 |
660 |
48 |
45 |
22 |
1,490 |
Utah |
424 |
249 |
17 |
22 |
8 |
720 |
Idaho |
292 |
174 |
----- |
26 |
8 |
500 |
Nevada |
247 |
232 |
19 |
14 |
18 |
530 |
Alaska |
156 |
84 |
12 |
5 |
8 |
265 |
Totals |
8,943 |
6,547 |
298 |
308 |
144 |
|
Perc. |
55.07% |
40.31% |
1.83% |
1.90% |
0.89% |
16,240,000 votes
The Pacific
SWEEP! It's Gore, 76-0!
As pointed out many times in these issues over the past 25 years,
California, Oregon and Washington are not Western states in the
truest sense of the word. They are analogous to Florida as a "southern"
state. Florida is atypical in its region ---just as Miami is not
comparable to Birmingham, Charlotte Jackson, or Nashville. Even
so, Florida is much more "southern" than these states
are "western."
Gore will win California by a solid margin approaching a million
votes. Bush will have closed up the enormous gap opened up by his
father and faithfully followed up by Dole (though to his credit,
Dole did better, albeit because of lower turnout). Still it is hard
to see how he can get much closer than 750,000 votes----far too
wide a gap to devote serious campaign efforts.
In the "Granola Range" states farther north, we see
Oregon as actually providing a decent showing for Bush, perhaps
allowing him to get within some 30,000 votes of winning. This is
because of an expected Nader vote approaching 8%. Unlike New Mexico,
the green vote here will really bite into Gore.
Nader will do well in Washington also, though should not get the
percentage he does in Oregon. Buchanan will not be a huge factor,
but will do better in Washington ----probably on NAFTA and because
Washington has more peculiar groups of fringe voters----and they
are active.
Hawaii being included in the West (as is conventional) is like putting
Key West in the South. This is another reason for our distinction
between the Western region and the Pacific. This is also a no-brainer.
The Pacific (4 states---76 electoral votes)
California (54), Oregon (7), Washington (11), Hawaii (4).
39 days out, this is the way we see it:
(Popular vote, in 000's)
State |
Bush |
Gore |
Nader |
Buch. |
Others |
California |
4,615 |
5,475 |
680 |
280 |
150 |
Oregon |
638 |
665 |
114 |
16 |
27 |
Washington |
973 |
1,077 |
115 |
80 |
45 |
Hawaii |
140 |
202 |
19 |
3 |
6 |
Totals |
6,366 |
7,419 |
928 |
379 |
228 |
Perc. |
41.55% |
48.43 |
6.06% |
2.47% |
1.49% |
15,320,000 votes
California 11,200,000 Oregon 1,460,000
Washington 2,290,000 Hawaii 370,000
Electoral College Recap
Region |
Bush |
Gore |
Total |
East |
0 |
127 |
127 |
South |
123 |
0 |
123 |
West |
100 |
0 |
100 |
Pacific |
0 |
76 |
76 |
Subtotal |
223 |
203 |
426 |
Midwest ? ? 112
Where does this leave Bush?
Bush leads 223-203, and must somehow pick up 47 additional electoral
votes out of the true battleground region of America, the Midwest.
Indiana is a certainty, add 12 to Bush, and Ohio will most likely
(without having done any calculations) fit into the mix as well.
They would put Bush at 256. Minnesota is equally certain for Gore,
as is Illinois. Those states bring him up to 235. That's where it
stands, because I know the outcomes in those states without running
any number, formulas, algorithms or calculations of any kinds.
It will all come down to Michigan, Missouri, Iowa (not likely for
Bush) and Wisconsin. That does not bode particularly well for Bush.
If he wins Michigan, he's in. But if not, he has to win two of the
other three. The GOP has not carried any of the four since 1988,
and hasn't won in Iowa or Wisconsin since 1984. Iowa was Mondale's
fourth best state in '84.
My Projections (Rerun)
[Editor's note: with about 250 new subscribers a week, I am running
this again, so that I don't have to answer so many e-mails.]
To allay further questions, let me say that I can't help what the
polls say. (I have had numerous comments about how my projections
don't match the polls---either in individual states or nationally.)
My projections are not based on polls----although, unlike many conservatives
I hear from, I believe most polling is highly accurate. Understanding
what polls mean and do not mean, as well as the ability to read
the internals of a poll, causes the disconnect between the pollster
and the consumer, i. e. the American voter, the consumer of news
and information.
My projections are based on trends within each state's national
elections AND the image/policy positions/ideology each candidate
has been able to project to this point. It is a complex process
which includes formulae for estimating the total vote and the trends
among new arrivals (based on census data) over the past two presidential
cycles.
In the next issue:
The Midwest
America's True Battleground
(8 states----112 electoral votes)
Ohio (21), Michigan (18), Indiana (12), Illinois (22), Wisconsin
(11), Minnesota (10), Iowa (7), Missouri (11).