Ohio and Missouri

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I am going to make a bold prediction here.  The 2004 Presidential election will come down to OH and MO.  If either candidate wins both of these states, they will win the election.  If they split these states, it will be a very, very close call.

If you want to forecast Nov. 2, look at the poll numbers in these two states.  It should be all you need to predict the winner.

[Ben.]

Have to agree with you there Beef…with the new break down of the Electoral College favouring Republicans the Dems best shot is to hope to win MO and/or OH in both states I would argue it will get highly competitive…I’ll stick my neck out and say that the Dems best shot out of the two is in OH…but as I’ve said both will be close and very competitive…other states the Dems will probably concentrate on will be NM, IA, PA, WV, NV, OR, NH and AZ….

[Reaganfan]

Many keep saying this will be a close election. I don't see it that way. I see at least 305 for Bush.

[zachman]

I agree with you Ben, Missouri is part of the biblle belt, and I think they will go for Kerry only if Ohio, Florida, Arizona and West Virginia go for Kerry. Could Virginia be in play?

[© tweed]

Could Virginia be in play?

Only if we pick Warner as VP.

[zachman]

I think Virginia would be in play with Edwards on the ticket. It would be a huge electoral boost, to work to make it a swing state.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Many keep saying this will be a close election. I don't see it that way. I see at least 305 for Bush.

If Bush gets 305, he will have an easy time in OH and MO, and win those by >5% margin.  He'll
most likely also take PA.

OTOH, if he loses OH and MO, no way will he get PA... and he'll be in big trouble in FL, CO, and AZ.

My point is, Ohio and Missouri are the "predictor" states.  Watch them for the final outcome.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I think OH is going to go Dem easily.  The Dems are big on jobs this time, and no state has been hit harder by job losses than Ohio.  I think WV is in the bag too.  Okay, 260+20+5 = 285.  They could lose NM and IA and still win. I really don't see where the Dems lose if the country stayed this divided up till Nov.  

Missouri is tough.  Maybe, it was very close in 2000.  

I wonder why no one's talking about Florida.  I think that's definetely Bush territory in 2004 anyway.  Unless Edwards pulls out the nomination.  

[zachman]

Beef what is your prospect on Wisconsin in November, I see it as a liberal state, how did it get so close last time?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Have to agree with you there Beef…with the new break down of the Electoral College favouring Republicans the Dems best shot is to hope to win MO and/or OH in both states I would argue it will get highly competitive…I’ll stick my neck out and say that the Dems best shot out of the two is in OH…but as I’ve said both will be close and very competitive…other states the Dems will probably concentrate on will be NM, IA, PA, WV, NV, OR, NH and AZ….

It would also behoove the Dems not to neglect WI and MI.  If the economy is in good shape, any Bush challenger is in big trouble here.  True, MI has been trending Dem lately, but WI has quietly been trending Republican.  That's why it's considered a battleground, despite the fact that it hasn't gone Republican since the 1984 landslide.  People like Bush here, and are pretty conservative on social issues.  We just recently amended our constitution in a landslide referrendum to protect hunting and fishing rights.  The senate and assembly are Republican-controlled, and the governor is a moderate Democrat.  The Legislature was (I think) one vote short of overriding the governor's veto on lifting the concealed-carry ban.

Anyway, WI is NOT Democrat-safe, by any stretch.  But it will go Dem if MO does :-).

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Beef what is your prospect on Wisconsin in November, I see it as a liberal state, how did it get so close last time?

WI is socially moderate to conservative, but also strongly Union, with a large manufacturing base.  Full of "Reagan Democrats."  Lots of Catholics and conservative Protestants who could be scared away from Kerry if he is portrayed as too far-left on abortion, gay marriage, and gun-control.  If the economy is perceived as good, Kerry is in big, big trouble here.

(Also read my response to Ben)

[Nation]

All I will predict is that OH is a must-win for the Democrats, since I doubt they're going to reclaim all the extremely close states from last election (New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin). They'll need more then those, though. West Virginia, Virginia, New Hampshire wouldn't hurt. Florida's too much of a longshot, but after last election, anything is possible.

[zachman]

Florida will be a battle of turnout, and I'm confident our grandmothers can travel down there in time for the election. The democrats will pick up NH and 1 state in the southwest, and probably hold New Mexico. They will keep Iowa, but could lose either Minnesota or Wisconsin. Ohio will be key, if the democrats will try the same northern route. If they picked Edwards, or if Edwards was the nominee, they will take the borderline south which has at least 35  EVs, a near impossible loss for the republicans.

[opebo]

Florida will be a battle of turnout, and I'm confident our grandmothers can travel down there in time for the election. The democrats will pick up NH and 1 state in the southwest, and probably hold New Mexico. They will keep Iowa, but could lose either Minnesota or Wisconsin. Ohio will be key, if the democrats will try the same northern route. If they picked Edwards, or if Edwards was the nominee, they will take the borderline south which has at least 35  EVs, a near impossible loss for the republicans.

No Democrat is going to take the 'borderline south', unless by that you just mean West Virginia.  

[elcorazon]

Although none of these states are locks, the dems WILL win the following states so long as they do not get blown out due to a strong economy and/or capturing Osama:
MINN
Wisconsin
Oregon
Washington

Iowa is not quite as safe as those and could be lost. NH is likely to switch as is WV.  I'm not sure about the SW; some seem to think NM is safe for the Republicans this time, but I'm not sure why.  I believe Nevada, Arizona and Colorado are all in play, but I seem to be in the minority there.  If I'm wrong on the SW, then the Dems MUST win Ohio to win.  If they win Ohio, they will have won Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and WV, I would think.  It is possible to see a scenario where the dems win all the Gore States, plus WV & NH & Missouri (while losing NM) which would still be a victory.  I just see Missouri as more likely in the Bush column than Ohio.

[jravnsbo]

Why Edwards couldn't even beat Kerry there! let alone Bush.

I think Virginia would be in play with Edwards on the ticket. It would be a huge electoral boost, to work to make it a swing state.

[jravnsbo]

MO--turnout was TERRIBLE for dems there.  415,000 onl y in dem primary.  GOP Primary in 2000 when there was race, was 465,000.  So much for the fired up party in MO.

Plus Gov Holden is very unpopular and will split the party with a primary fight of his own.

Bush will win MO, not worried.

[opebo]

MO--turnout was TERRIBLE for dems there.  415,000 onl y in dem primary.  GOP Primary in 2000 when there was race, was 465,000.  So much for the fired up party in MO.

Plus Gov Holden is very unpopular and will split the party with a primary fight of his own.

Bush will win MO, not worried.

Agreed.  MO is in the bag, and even OH I think is a lot safer than people seem to think.  All depends on the economy - it only has to get a little better to make OH safe against the likes of Kerry.

I think its hilarious that Democrats are talking about states like Virginia or Colorado - its as if I were to express confidence BUsh would win Washington or California.

[elcorazon]

I think its hilarious that Democrats are talking about states like Virginia or Colorado - its as if I were to express confidence BUsh would win Washington or California.

Colorado in 2000:
George W. Bush 883,745 50.75%  
 Albert Gore Jr. 738,227 42.39%  
 Ralph Nader 91,434      5.25%

Virginia in 2000:

George W. Bush1,437,490 52.47%  
 Albert Gore Jr. 1,217,290 44.44%  
 Ralph Nader 59,398      2.17%

California in 2000:

Albert Gore Jr. 5,861,203     53.45%  
 George W. Bush 4,567,429 41.65%  
 Ralph Nader  418,707           3.82%

Washington in 2000:

Albert Gore Jr.  1,247,652     50.13%  
George W. Bush 1,108,864  44.56%  
Ralph Nader 103,002             4.14%

If you assume the dems can get 70% of the Nader vote, then they lost CO by about 4.5% & VA by about 6.5%.
The won CA by about 10% & WA by about 8.5%.

If the election is a close one, CO and VA are more likely to be close than CA or WA.  Of course if Bush wins easily, then CO & VA will easily go for Bush as well.

[daniel27]

I think Kerry can win Ohio if he has a projection of 3 percent. With Ohio he can win the race

[opebo]

I think its hilarious that Democrats are talking about states like Virginia or Colorado - its as if I were to express confidence BUsh would win Washington or California.

Colorado in 2000:
George W. Bush 883,745 50.75%  
 Albert Gore Jr. 738,227 42.39%  
 Ralph Nader 91,434      5.25%

Virginia in 2000:

George W. Bush1,437,490 52.47%  
 Albert Gore Jr. 1,217,290 44.44%  
 Ralph Nader 59,398      2.17%

California in 2000:

Albert Gore Jr. 5,861,203     53.45%  
 George W. Bush 4,567,429 41.65%  
 Ralph Nader  418,707           3.82%

Washington in 2000:

Albert Gore Jr.  1,247,652     50.13%  
George W. Bush 1,108,864  44.56%  
Ralph Nader 103,002             4.14%

If you assume the dems can get 70% of the Nader vote, then they lost CO by about 4.5% & VA by about 6.5%.
The won CA by about 10% & WA by about 8.5%.

If the election is a close one, CO and VA are more likely to be close than CA or WA.  Of course if Bush wins easily, then CO & VA will easily go for Bush as well.

You guys are all too obsessed with the math.  Just because there's a general shift in the percentage of the national vote doesn't mean there will be an equal shift in all states.  There is a very solid base of Democrat support in Washington and California, and Republican support in Virginia and Colorado, and this is not necessarily effected by a shift in the national vote.  This is particularly true in the current polarized climate.  Its just arbitrary on your part to make these mathematical assumptions.  Colorado and Virginia will go for Bush even if he loses.

[NHPolitico]

Have to agree with you there Beef…with the new break down of the Electoral College favouring Republicans the Dems best shot is to hope to win MO and/or OH in both states I would argue it will get highly competitive…I’ll stick my neck out and say that the Dems best shot out of the two is in OH…but as I’ve said both will be close and very competitive…other states the Dems will probably concentrate on will be NM, IA, PA, WV, NV, OR, NH and AZ….

It would also behoove the Dems not to neglect WI and MI.  If the economy is in good shape, any Bush challenger is in big trouble here.  True, MI has been trending Dem lately, but WI has quietly been trending Republican.  That's why it's considered a battleground, despite the fact that it hasn't gone Republican since the 1984 landslide.  People like Bush here, and are pretty conservative on social issues.  We just recently amended our constitution in a landslide referrendum to protect hunting and fishing rights.  The senate and assembly are Republican-controlled, and the governor is a moderate Democrat.  The Legislature was (I think) one vote short of overriding the governor's veto on lifting the concealed-carry ban.

Anyway, WI is NOT Democrat-safe, by any stretch.  But it will go Dem if MO does :-).

Dean could have at least pretended to be pro-gun. Kerry can't.

[DarthKosh]

Have to agree with you there Beef…with the new break down of the Electoral College favouring Republicans the Dems best shot is to hope to win MO and/or OH in both states I would argue it will get highly competitive…I’ll stick my neck out and say that the Dems best shot out of the two is in OH…but as I’ve said both will be close and very competitive…other states the Dems will probably concentrate on will be NM, IA, PA, WV, NV, OR, NH and AZ….

It would also behoove the Dems not to neglect WI and MI.  If the economy is in good shape, any Bush challenger is in big trouble here.  True, MI has been trending Dem lately, but WI has quietly been trending Republican.  That's why it's considered a battleground, despite the fact that it hasn't gone Republican since the 1984 landslide.  People like Bush here, and are pretty conservative on social issues.  We just recently amended our constitution in a landslide referrendum to protect hunting and fishing rights.  The senate and assembly are Republican-controlled, and the governor is a moderate Democrat.  The Legislature was (I think) one vote short of overriding the governor's veto on lifting the concealed-carry ban.

Anyway, WI is NOT Democrat-safe, by any stretch.  But it will go Dem if MO does :-).

Dean could have at least pretended to be pro-gun. Kerry can't.

That will hurt him big time.

[HoopsCubs]

Many keep saying this will be a close election. I don't see it that way. I see at least 305 for Bush.

Aren't you the same person, who last week and the week before, saying that Bush was going to get 405 electoral votes.   Now, it's only 305?  What happened to the landslide?  

[Esteban Manuel]

Have to agree with you there Beef…with the new break down of the Electoral College favouring Republicans the Dems best shot is to hope to win MO and/or OH in both states I would argue it will get highly competitive…I’ll stick my neck out and say that the Dems best shot out of the two is in OH…but as I’ve said both will be close and very competitive…other states the Dems will probably concentrate on will be NM, IA, PA, WV, NV, OR, NH and AZ….

I agree with Ben, i think there's about 6 traditional republican states that are really close. But there's also the case of CA and PA, wich are close (right now, i don't think will be in Nov)