From: king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King)
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: 11 Sep 92 06:23:44 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>king@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Jonathan King) writes:
>>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.  [stuff deleted]
>
>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. 

Of course not.  But what "region" is NH part of?  :-) Outside of 1964,
it hasn't gone Democratic since Roosevelt beet Dewey by fewer than
10,000 votes in the middle of World War II.  More generally, New
England is very diverse economically and politically and looks that
way electorally, as well.  (This is *not* to say that the South is
especially homogeneous, of course.)

>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. 

"Yale-type liberal"...an interesting turn of phrase. :-) 

I do see your point, but it's not that Democrats never win or come
close in TN.  Since 1940, Roosevelt won twice, and Truman beat Dewey.
While Eisenhower beat Stevenson twice, he did it by a comined total of
less than 10,000 votes.  Nixon took the state a total of 3 times, but
Carter won it 1976 and lost it by only 4700 votes in 1980.  This
certainly won't be a Clinton walk-over, but I wouldn't be shocked to
see him carry it by 100,000 votes barring some weird mishap.

>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.

Maybe, but by the same token people in TN already have some
familiarity with the governor-next-door and thus might discount some
of the more random mud-slinging.  I think this argument might work better
for states like Georgia and North Carolina.

>>>Although I think these states will probably go to Clinton, I'd like to 
>>>see some polling data from NY, MA and RI. [...]
>
>>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. 

Was Florio defeated this year when I wasn't looking?  As far as MA goes,
I'm not sure Weld was elected more for "fiscal restraint" than for "not
being incredibly annoying". :-)  

>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.

I'll have to wait until tomorrow to see the SF Chronical (Field) polls
alluded to in this group; that might tell us something.

>>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. :)

Well, the Field Poll apparently now says its leaning Bush, so there you go.

>>>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.

Last I've heard is that KY is very shaky indeed, although you might
well be right about GA.

>>>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.

True, but that's also 8% undecided, and it's pretty surprising to me
that it leans towards Clinton at all.  Also, was this poll taken
before his recent appearance in the state?

> [stuff deleted]
>
>>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.

Maybe not, but Bush's approval ratings are pretty low, people are
worried about the economy, and it's pretty unclear whether or not the
economic numbers coming out in the weeks ahead are going to be much better
than they are now.  In particular, a bad 3rd quarter GNP number would
probably mean instant death.

>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.

True enough.  But Bush has to do more than pick up the South, and I
don't think he'll be able to do it without spending a lot of time and
money there, which could leave other states "hanging", to use a chess
phrase.

>>>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.

The NYT reports that the Chicago Tribune Poll found that IL was 51-32
Clinton.  That was last week, but that *still* has to be very
discouraging for the Bush camp.

>>Definitely.  As well as TN, GA, LA, OK, and NC.  And FL, just for kicks.
>
>Hell, why not a comprehensive state by state list of polls? 
>That's what we'd all like to see, I think.

Maybe the recent Field poll will help in this regard; and maybe
somebody besides me will be able to type it in. :-)

jking




Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections