From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A guess at the electoral votes (was Re: Some state polls)
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:40:29 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:

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

Yes. Everything I've heard so far indicates nothing less than a big
victory for Clinton there.

>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).

No, I actually believe in the "regional" strategy - that it does work,
sometimes. It helped pull off bigger wins in NY and MA than they would
have been in 1988 were Dukakis not the nomineee. Nevertheless, Dukakis
didn't have a prayer of getting NH. That's how I think TN will work. In
general TN is more conservative than Arkansas, and if Clinton is painted
as a Yale-type liberal, rather than as a Dixiecrat, then TN will not be
drawn to Clinton. While they'd like to vote for Gore, if they find
Clinton objectionable, they will find it difficult to overlook just to
be able to vote for Gore, who they may still think of as a "conservative"
Democrat. I guess that TN will be more affected by negative attacks on
Clinton than most states.

>>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.

So, just as in NJ, the voters voted in "fiscal restraint" with Republican
governors. It's possible that this feeling could have taken root in MA
and NY as well as Massachusetts by now. Until I see some polls that prove
otherwise, I'll still look to the Northeast for some big surprises.

>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).

That is strange, considering ID has the highest percentage of millionaires,
I hear. :)

>>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?).

No polling, just gut feelings. Of the three, KY is the shakiest. GA could
never go for Clinton.

>>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?

Someone gave me the results of a CT poll - which showed something like a
48 - 44 race, with Clinton in the lead. That's much narrower than the
nationwide Clinton lead.


>>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 :-)).

That's true. I tend to think that in general, people will come back to an
incumbent if they aren't absolutely livid. People may be disappointed with
Bush, but they're not quite that angry all over the country, I believe.
That's what makes me believe the South, who is the most fond of Bush, will
return. After all, firing someone is a tough thing to do for anybody.

>>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? :-))

Hell, why not a comprehensive state by state list of polls? 
That's what we'd all like to see, I think.

-ACF
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:12779 talk.politics.misc:44593