Talk Elections

I'll go out on limb and claim that the winner of WI will be the winner of the election.  

I agree with you, although I'm beginning to think Kerry may need Florida in order to win, which looks doubtful to me.

Hmmm, you could be right, though I'd say that Wisconsin will mean different things for the two candidates when election night rolls around.  Kerry would likely need it to get over the 270 mark, whereas if Bush wins it, it's more likely to just add to his already significant (note: not landslide) victory.

Does anyone remember CNN calling Kentucky a bellweather in 2000?  Maybe that's because it voted twice for Clinton (barely in 1996), but Bush won it by 15 points.  It seemed silly to me at the time to be calling it a bellweather state.  They change from election to election.

This year, I'd say the top bellweathers are:
- Wisconsin
- Iowa
- Missouri
- New Mexico

I'd say more an "acid test" for Kerry.

Ik Kerry loses WI's 10 EVs its a long hard climb to 270, it can be done, but the chances of losing WI and winning something else back from Bush like OH or FL is pretty thin IMHO.

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

I'm inclined to agree, I've had that feeling for a long time actually. Wisconsin and New Mexico have been the 2 states I've felt were the toughest to pin-point if the race was tied. But Kerry should be favoured, ever so slightly, in WI and probably needs it to win the election.

I don’t think we have a bellweather yet, in the sense that there is no state that is critical for both candidates.

I think at this point, FL and PA are the deciding states. Of the remaining swing states, they are the ones with the electoral weight to carry the election (I consider OH and MO off the table for Kerry now.)

If Kerry loses FL and PA, it’s over. If he actually squeaked by in both, Bush would have to put together a combination of other swing states, probably including 2 of 3 of the upper Midwest states (IA, MN, and WS).

Barring a disaster in Iraq or a clear victory for Kerry in the debates (neither of which are likely), Kerry will probably lose all of the above-mentioned states, IMHO.

Maybe a definition of bellweather would help.  I'm not the one to give it, as I see two conflicting ideas of what one may or may not be.

1) A state that if, on election day, votes for a certain candidate, indicates victory for said candidate whether it is critical for the Electoral Vote count or not.

2) A state critical to a candidate's Electoral strategy; a necessary piece of the puzzle.

I'm much more inclined to think that a bellweather fits definition #1, but I've heard differently.  I think #2 better describes a battleground rather than a bellweather, though.

Could it be that it means different things to different campaigns?  What may be a "just a bellweather" for Bush could be a key part of Kerry's map strategy.

My definition for bellweather is having the sum of the enviroment of the election boiled into one state, so that the direction of that one state is the tipping point for both sides.

Basically, I beieve if Kerry wins WI, he will also win PA, IA, and flip NH.  That brings Bush's EV total down to 274, and if Kerry wins WI, chances are he will also flips one of the following: NV, AR, or CO.

But, if Bush flips WI, then he probably maintains everything from 2000 except NH and can offord a surprse loss of either NV, AR, or CO...thus I don't see how Kerry wins the election if he loses WI.

I think WI is a must win for both Bush and Kerry.

I believe the election will not be particularly close. But if it is, Bush does not NEED Wisconsin, Kerry does and if ain't got it, he ain't got Florida either.

The best bellweather here is Ohio; currently it's decent Bush lean is nationally indicative.

It's all up to OH, FL, and PA.  You gotta win two of those states to win the presidency.  Or miraculously pull off a bunch of unlikely smaller states.

I think Bush could pull it off

()

Bush 272

()

Bush 270

()

Bush 270

I don't think any of those scenarios are likely.

I do.

No, seriously...they're not.  Sure, it's possible, but those three scenarios are really stretching the bounds of reality.

Uh...

()

He's up in the polls in Wisconsin, Maine CD 2, and Iowa. Consider the bounds stretched.

Easy, spaz, I'm not saying it can't happen.  It's just more likely that if Bush carries Wisconsin and Iowa, he's going to get Florida AND Ohio as well...as your personal prediction points out.

Philip, what's your point? Bush is ahead, so naturally he's up everywhere where he's competitive. Bush almost certainly won't carry Minnesota while losing Florida and Ohio, or Pennsylvania for that matter.

Of all the states won by Gore, Wisconsin is certainly looking the most vulnerable to Bush. I'm not certain it will be the election decider though.

Dave

I'm backing Philip on this one. This map is very plausible. Let's start with the current Atlas state poll aggregate. Phiip's maphere hasn't flipped any state that is colored for one candidate or the other.

Now consider a slight return to Kerry in the last month of the campaign. Of the toss-up states on the Atlas survey the following go to Kerry:

Kerry: NJ, OR, MN, ME-CD1(with ME statewide) - hard to see any problem here. This is consistent with many polls seen on the site.

Bush: NM, WV, ME-CD2 - I don't see anything wrong with these states going this way based on recent polling.

Kerry: NH, PA - With a slight swing in October this is not at all unreasonable since Northeastern states could see more of the swing than other parts of the country. Kerry's message is most in line with that part of the country.

Kerry: FL - This is the tough one to call. One factor that will make this exceedingly difficult is the hurricane effect. The level of disruption in that state is going to wreck havoc with voter turnout models. Getting voters to the polls can be difficult in good times. When there are more pressing things in life, voting becomes optional for many citizens.

Why is this so hard to imagine?

Although Bush is polling stronger in OH than FL, OH will swing back to Kerry much faster than FL - Bush has a much stronger base of support in FL than in OH.

Kerry will win OH before he wins FL.

Florida is Bush Country in 2004.

In any ordinary year I would agree with you, and my personal prediction is still FL for Bush. However, I don't think it's implausible that FL flip to Kerry before OH.

Let me say more about the hurricane factor. FL has been hit by three hurricanes with a fourth on the way. Needless to say this is unprecedented and there is no past example to say how or if this will still impact voting in Nov. If the election were today, I'd bet that turnout in areas impacted by the hurricane are noticably lower.

Now consider where the hurricanes have struck, and where they haven't. Frances and Charley criss-crossed the center of the state. Bonnie, then Ivan struck the western panhandle. Jeanne is also headed for central FL. What's missing - Miami Dade.

If I had to guess, I'd think that south FL would vote in a normal pattern while central and western FL have a lower than normal turnout. Politically this would mean the Democratic stronghold of Miami votes about as expected, but strong Republican areas don't turn out. It wouldn't be for lack of support if Bush loses FL, just lack of votes cast.

Isn't this still a victory for Bush?

I may be confused over what exactly Philip is arguing....My argument is that WI is a must win for both sides and is therefore the bellweather.

Yes, I believe that Philip was creating possible scenarios for a Bush with while losing two OH, FL, PA. The map quote here is the one of those three that seems most consistent with the current electorate. An interesting complication to this scenario would be if it happens as on the map, and CO votes in favor of its proportional representation referendum. That would give kerry a win, and then we surely would see a repeat of the 2000 legal wrangling.

The "Big 4" as I see it, are FL, NJ, OH, & PA.  Kerry will have to win three (and, possibly excepting OH, they are close), to tie or win.  I'm not seeing WI as being as critical.  Even if Kerry would get the two biggest of these states, AND WI, he'd still lose.

Point taken, but unless Kerry can make any headway in any large red states (excepting WV, NH, NV), if Bush wins Ohio, Florida and any state with more than 8 electoral votes (Wisconsin is one of those), he will win regardless of a Kerry small-state strategy.

I also must respectfully disagree with the idea that these hurricanes are going to cause any lower turnout in Florida.  The Panhandle of Florida especially remembers the early call to Gore before their polls had closed and will probably not take this election lightly.  In fact, I doubt anyone in Florida will.

The truth is that the hurricanes might actually help Bush, because as of right now, both he and his brother are receiving exemplary marks from all polls on their handling of the situation and that might tend to overshadow other issues in the state and the nation at large.

This is a good analysis. Although I said earlier that FL and PA together now hold the collective weight to decide the election, it's true that states like OH and MO go with the winner most often (OH with every GOP winner, and MO with every winner?).

Three or four months ago, when both of them looked like tossups, the national PV polls were split and the entire election felt like a true tossup.

Since OH and MO have started turning darker shades of Republican on most poll maps, my stomach is settling down a bit.

But it ain't over yet.

Thats why I am still so uncertain about Bush winning FL - after what happened in 2000, you would have to assume a huge turnout - its just so unpredictable....I think Bush is ahead, but until Brit Hume tells me Bush won Florida, I wil still be so nervous.  I think Republicans assuming Bush will win Florida just because the economy is good there are not taking 2000 into account

MO went for Stevenson in 1956.

It is getting to the point where Kerry just does not have the math to win.  If I really had to pick a bellweather state, it would be FL, but that's looking better and better for Bush; if won, that would be his second largest state.

What I'm looking at, however, is Kerry putting all of his resources in there and pulling out of NJ, PA, and the upper mid-west.  I don't think it would be a good strategy, but let's face it, Kerry's campaign hasn't been that strategically minded as of late.

That would be suicide.  I've already heard rumors floating about that the Kerry camp was considering pulling out of Ohio (not officially, of course, but for all practical purposes).  I'm quite positive that New Jersey will vote Kerry despite a few polls showing a tight race there.  He probably could afford to pull out there, and maybe in Michigan, too.  But no way could he pull out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, or Minnesota, especially with five long weeks to go before election day.  The collective 41 votes there would more than make up for a Florida loss, regardless of which campaign loses Florida.  It looks as if Bush could afford to lose Florida while winning PA, WI, and MN.  Kerry absolutely could not.  He won't pull out of those states.

Edit: I can't forget Iowa, either.  It's still in play.  Again, a Kerry shift to a total Florida focus would be ludicrous.

I agree that it's far from a good strategy.  What I'm looking at is that, late October, Kerry takes an all or nothing shot, or something close to it.  He decides that PA will hold and launches a full attack on FL; he diverts the money from the Phila media market (keeps it in Pittsburgh, Scranton, and Altoona); he decides that he's solid in MI and IL (he is) and that MN will go to him without much more effort.  He puts it all into FL.

Now, in that case, WI is not a bellweather state; PA is.  For Kerry to win, he has to bite off a state Bush carried in 2000.  He could.  The price of that would probably be losing NJ and PA.  

NJ is a toss-up, IMO, at this point; PA certainly is.

Basically, the bellweather state is the state where, in the last days, Kerry says, in effect, "Okay, we'll risk it.  We're cutting back."

I think a far better strategy would be to write off everything south of the Ohio/Potomac line and hit New England, NJ, PA, and the Mid-West.  It was a mistake to pull out of MO.