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: those toss-ups could be real killers for Bush
Keywords: electoral college, electoral votes, poll, polls, states
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:29:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>Yow.  If NC, NJ, DE, and KY are considered toss-ups, then this would
>>change my view of things somewhat.  (But I was out of the loop--nobody
>>is giving me any polling data...)
>
>Yeah, after looking at it more closely, I see it is an extremely rosy
>scenario for Clinton. They have Clinton's base at 233, and Bush's at 175.
>
>Looking at the toss-up states, then, it seems Clinton only has to win up to
>Colorado in the list to reach 271. I.e., he wouldn't have to win in either
>MI or OH.

But you have to remember that the Democrats have taken *NONE* of these
alleged toss-up states since 1976, and haven't taken a number of other
states in the Clinton "base".  In particular, PA.

> NYT toss-up states:
> [summary in increasing order of 1988 Bush margin:  VT, MO, NM, CT, MT,
>  CO, MI, LA, OH, ME, KY, DE, NJ, NC]
>
>Starting from the bottom of the list, Bush would have to win NC, NJ, DE,
>KY, ME, OH, LA, MI, and CO to reach 175+100 or 275. Clinton has a lot
>more margin for error, since he stands a good chance to win in MI (and
>even OH), thereby allowing him to lose a few in the VT, MO, NM, CT, MT,
>and CO sequence.

But, again, he still has to win PA and IL, and I think there is more
margin for error there than the NYT thinks.

>>Looks pretty good to me, except for MT.  When was the last time the
>>Republicans lost MT for Pete's sake?
>
>They went for LBJ, I think. But that election was atypical perhaps.
>(Goldwater's weakness coupled with a JFK sympathy vote).

I was asking a rhetorical question, but it actually turns out to be
less rhetorical than I thought.  Montana went Democratic in 1940,
1944, 1948, and 1964, and Republican in other years since 1940, but
some of the Republican margins have been pretty small.  In 1960, the
GOP took it by 6,950 votes, and in 1968 the Wallace vote possibly
widened the GOPs 25K vote lead.  The Republicans have won MT by
similar margins in 1976 and 1988, even as the votes cast have gone up
a fair amount.  In 1972, 1980, and 1984, the Democrats got pretty well
stomped, but that wasn't just in MT, of course.  For what it's worth,
the MT national office holders are split right down the middle (all 4
of them).

>By the way, does anyone know why Iowa is voting Democratic these days?
>Dukakis took the state pretty handily, but before that they were pretty
>consistently Republican. What happened there? They just don't like Bush
>for some reason?

Actually, Iowa is also a pretty weird place.  I'm not sure their
presidential votes are especially partisan, but Democrats have been
doing better there recently.  

Historically since 1940, Iowans were *not* big on Roosevelt, but
Truman won there in 1948.  Similarly, it appears that Iowans didn't
care much for Stevenson, and Kennedy actually lost the state by 200K
votes in 1960 (anybody know why?).  1964 doesn't tell you much
(Goldwater got crushed) and 1968 may not tell you much more, since
Wallace pulled in 66K votes while Nixon's margin was less than 150K.
Or maybe they just like Nixon out there, since they sure didn't care
for George McGovern, either.  In 1976, Carter would have won the state
if Eugene McCarthy had thrown his 20,000 votes Jimmy's way.  In 1980,
Reagan just managed to win a majority in Iowa, with 115K votes for
Anderson, 13K votes for Clark (Libertarian), and even 2K votes for
Barry Commoner.  In 1984 Mondale got stomped (but by a smaller margin
than nationally), while in 1988 Bush got stomped. (Weird trivia:
Lyndon LaRouche ran third in the state in 1988.)

What to conclude?  My guess is that Iowans don't really care for
candidates from the North and Northeast, particularly if liberal or
otherwise scary, and don't care for people who sound whiny or phony.
They are also more likely to spring for 3rd party candidates.  Their
Washington crew is pretty evenly split between the two parties.

>>And we all know that as ME goes, so goes the nation.
>
>Not. :-)

Picky, picky, picky.

Okay, Last state for the day.  Maine is pretty flaky, but votes kind
of like Iowa.  Since 1940, Roosevelt lost twice, Truman lost,
Stevenson was stomped twice, and Kennedy lost by about the same
percentage he did in Iowa.  Then Goldwater got crushed, and Humphrey
carried the state in 1968 (running mates can help).  1972 was 1972.
In 1976, Carter probably would have won the state if McCarthy hadn't
collected 10,000 votes, while in 1980 Carter probably lost it only
because of John Anderson.  Mondale got stomped in 1984.  In 1988,
Maine was one of Bush's home states, and Dukakis was from
Massachusetts.  This time around, I'd be pretty worried about ME if I
were George Bush.  A recent poll of my in-laws living there show that
60% (3) favor Clinton, while only 40% (2) favor Bush; since the margin
of error is up around +-40%, we can see that ME is a toss-up state.
:-)

>--- >Joe Knapp jmk@cbvox.att.com

jking
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:13001 alt.flame:12804