From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Summary: let's quibble about those border states while we're at it.
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:17:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>CLINTON LOCKS		CLINTON ADVANTAGE
>
>>State	EVs		State	EVs
>>[stuff deleted; should be fairly uncontroversial]
>>Total	98		Total	93
>
>>GRAND CLINTON TOTAL	191		; note that this is just Dukakis
>>					; in 1988 plus CA, VT, AR, and TN
>
>This makes perfect sense to me. Regional politics haven't changed much in
>the past 4 years, so Dukakis states will certainly be Clinton states. I'd
>look to TN as a state that eventually will slide back to Bush. Bush won by
>a 12 pt. margin here last time, and Gore, after all, is only the VP 
>candidate.

You didn't mention CA, so I assume you agree there as well.

Thus I take it that you reject the "regional appeal" argument for
border states.  I'm not so sure this time.  Dukakis was the TN
Candidate From Hell from what I heard, although I could be wrong of
course.  Doesn't TN now sport 2 Democratic senators (Sasser and Gore)?
I'm not suggesting this will be a push-over, but it's not like Bush
can claim TN as a home state (as he could with TX last time, which is
one reason why Bensen didn't help much).

>Although I think these states will probably go to Clinton, I'd like to 
>see some polling data from NY, MA and RI. Without a Northeastern candidate 
>like Dukakis, who won MA by a rather embarrassing 7 pts, perhaps the races 
>there may be closer than expected. 

Well, anti-Dukakis sentiment was already boiling up in MA by the election,
so you have to be careful making much of the victory margin.

RI should be easily Clinton; heck, they went for Carter in 1980 unless I'm
mistaken and almost went for Mondale in 1984 (which is saying a lot, when
you think about it).

>>BUSH LOCKS		BUSH ADVANTAGE
>>State	EVs		State	EVs
>>UT	 5		ME	 4		
>>ID	 4		NH	 4
>>AK	 3		VA	13
>>SC	 8		NE	 5
>>MS	 7		KS	 8
>>MT	 3		AZ	 8	; a loss here could be death
>>WY	 3		TX	32	; a loss here is almost instant death
>>IN	12		FL	25
>>ND	 3		NJ	15
>>SD	 3		NM	 5	; I've heard of problems in NM (!)
>>AL	 7		LA	 9	; same here in LA
>>NV	 4		NC	14	; NC is worth more EVs than before
>>
>>Total	62		Total	145
>>GRAND BUSH TOTAL	207
>
>I agree here, except for a few exceptions. Working with the Dukakis 
>numbers, I see that Dukakis lost MT, SD by only 6 pts, and NM by only 
>4pts! I'd expect NM to be a Clinton state, and MT and SD to be only 
>leaning Bush. On the other hand, I think FL is surely a Republican state, 
>as will be TX.

You might be right about NM; I forgot that was so close.  SD and MT
would still really surprise me (although somebody just posted that the ID
poll now shows a *dead heat* there; this is getting really weird).

>>SWING STATES
>
>>LEAN CLINTON		LEAN BUSH	
>
>>State	EVs		State	EVs
>
>>MO	11		OK	 8	; MO may be stronger for Clinton
>>CT	 8		CO	 8	; CO is overlooked as a swing state
>>PA	23		GA	13	; both PA and GA are very important
>>IL	22		OH	21	; IL may be stronger for Clinton
>>MI	18		KY	 8	; KY reports early...stomaches flutter?
>>Total	82		Total	58
>
>The important part right here: I wouldn't worry about OK, KY, GA. They are
>certainly Bush states. 

Do you have polling on this?  Seriously, I expect the Clinton/Gore ticket
to do much better here than Dukakis did in 1988, and I've heard that Bush
strategists are getting a bit nervous about GA (polls, anybody?).

>I'd also put CT on the other side as well. 

Maybe, but Bush isn't leading there now, and they've been heaving
incumbents over the side there recently.  And when was the last time
CT had *2* Democratic senators?

>But then, I'd say IL is most certainly a Clinton state this year. 

Probably, but I want to see some indication of how he's doing in Peoria. :-)
Seriously, if Clinton is running even in the downstate counties in a couple
weeks, I'd pull out my forces if I were Bush.

>This leaves 5 states to decide the entire election: MO, PA, MI, CO, OH.
>
>This makes 250 EV for Bush, 
>           207 EV for Clinton, with 
>            81 EV undecided.

(Your math checks out here, just for the record.)

I can't argue with this total from certain knowledge, but I expect
Clinton to do rather better in the Border states, LA, and GA then you
project; you are projecting *all* of them to fall for Bush, which
looks pretty iffy to me right now (heck, Bush isn't finished with his
Texas visits yet, and I'm sure he'll be sick of Florida by the end of
the campaign as well :-)).

>OK. My guess is that CO and MI will both go to Bush narrowly, by 3-4% margins.

I'm expecting closer margins than that; it looks like a real crapshoot to me.

>    PA will probably go to Clinton, as will MO, with equally thin margins.

Did Bush come up with any gifts for McDonnell Douglas yet?  Is he
expected to?  If not, I think MO could be easier for Clinton than I
thought yesterday.  I mean, Mike Dukakis really did almost win it in 1988,
and he must have been the MO Candidate from Hell (q.v. TN).

>    That leaves OH, which gave Bush an 11 pt. victory last time. This 
>    will go to Bush as well. That makes my prediction as of today:
>
>    Bush:    297 votes
>    Clinton: 241 votes

On the other hand, Bush wasn't down by 10 points in Ohio on Labor Day.

>I'd like comments as well, but I'd really enjoy seeing poll results from
>certain states, including MO, IL, PA, MI, OH, NY, MA, RI, NJ and CT.

Definitely.  As well as TN, GA, LA, OK, and NC.  And FL, just for kicks.

(And what *is* this insurrection we're hearing about in ID? :-))

But seriously, if Bush has *any* problems in NJ right now, I'm not
sure the election will turn out to be as close as we have been
assuming.  And if the nation-wide unemployment rate doesn't fall below
7.5% by election day, we could even see a rout.

>-ACF

jking
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections