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).