Is Pennsylvania "in play"..?

[zachman]

NV has been close in the last three elections and the urban growth there should benefit the Democrats. It has had low turnout in the past, so it may inspire some long term Nevadans to vote Bush which may counteract the growth.

[opebo]

NV has been close in the last three elections and the urban growth there should benefit the Democrats. It has had low turnout in the past, so it may inspire some long term Nevadans to vote Bush which may counteract the growth.

I don't think those newcomers are so Democratic as you seem to..

[Gustaf]

PA is definitely in play, as are NM, IA, MN, WS, and OR (60EV).  The only Republican states I see is similarly in play are NH, FL, and OH (51EV).

You see a tight field. I agree with your Democratic picks, but in addiittion to NH, FL, and OH I would add NV and WV.

Well, good points, I had actually thought about NV but see it as solid, and unfortunatly had completely forgotten WV.  I'd go along with adding that one for a total of 56 EV in play GOP states.

I agree with those picks as well. Though I think at least 1 or 2 of the Dem states mentioned will turn out to be more solid...not sure which though...

[© tweed]

The three tossups that will decide the election are Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  All three of those could go either way, they are all tossups.

[Gustaf]

The three tossups that will decide the election are Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  All three of those could go either way, they are all tossups.

Yep.

Whoever wins all 3 should be safe.

[Beet]

Actually you're right.

[© tweed]

The three tossups that will decide the election are Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  All three of those could go either way, they are all tossups.

Yep.

Whoever wins all 3 should be safe.

Even two of three, barring Richardson swinging AZ.

[The Vorlon]

PA is definitely in play, as are NM, IA, MN, WS, and OR (60EV).  The only Republican states I see is similarly in play are NH, FL, and OH (51EV).

Should add West Virginia to 2000 GOP states that are in play...

[Beet]

The three tossups that will decide the election are Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  All three of those could go either way, they are all tossups.

Yep.

Whoever wins all 3 should be safe.

Even two of three, barring Richardson swinging AZ.

I thought Richardson has already refused the VP spot. And I doubt a VP could switch a neighboring state.

[© tweed]

The three tossups that will decide the election are Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  All three of those could go either way, they are all tossups.

Yep.

Whoever wins all 3 should be safe.

Even two of three, barring Richardson swinging AZ.

I thought Richardson has already refused the VP spot. And I doubt a VP could switch a neighboring state.

Edwards also has refused the spot

[Gustaf]

The three tossups that will decide the election are Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  All three of those could go either way, they are all tossups.

Yep.

Whoever wins all 3 should be safe.

Even two of three, barring Richardson swinging AZ.

Bush can win with 2 of 3, but I don't think Kerry necessesarily would be safe.

[Beet]

The three tossups that will decide the election are Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  All three of those could go either way, they are all tossups.

Yep.

Whoever wins all 3 should be safe.

Even two of three, barring Richardson swinging AZ.

I thought Richardson has already refused the VP spot. And I doubt a VP could switch a neighboring state.

Edwards also has refused the spot

If Bush won 2 of 3, Kerry would need either Arizona or Missouri.

[GOPhound]

Vorlon, thanks for your analysis.  Your posts on polling methodology are really fascinating to me.  I'm a numbers person too (Financial Analyst) so I appreciate that kind of stuff.  I always read your posts with great interest.

Does your map have any assumptions for Kerry's VP, or is it just Bush-Kerry?  The polls seem to give Kerry a few extra points when it's Bush/Cheney vs. Kerry/Edwards.  

[they don't love you like i love you]

in play maybe, but I would still definately put it as leaning Kerry. It's worth pointing out there are a few suburban counties in PA that are overwhelmingly Republican in voter registration but voted for Gore in 2000. That's because the moderate suburban Republicans didn't want to vote for a right wing extremist like Bush (the same thing happened in a few NY and NJ counties). The same will probably happen for Kerry.

[zachman]

Kerry will replicate Gore's support, but will gain among former independents and any new angry demographics, ie. college students, pacifists, Muslims.

[Beet]

in play maybe, but I would still definately put it as leaning Kerry. It's worth pointing out there are a few suburban counties in PA that are overwhelmingly Republican in voter registration but voted for Gore in 2000. That's because the moderate suburban Republicans didn't want to vote for a right wing extremist like Bush (the same thing happened in a few NY and NJ counties). The same will probably happen for Kerry.

I don't think Bush was seen as an extremist back in 2000.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Kerry will replicate Gore's support, but will gain among former independents and any new angry demographics, ie. college students, pacifists, Muslims.

You just brought up a very good point here. There are lots of religions in central Pennsylvania like Amish, Bretheran, Mennonites, ect. which are rather conservative but are pacifists. While many don't vote, I doubt they'll be voting for Bush this time. That's another advantage Kerry has.

[they don't love you like i love you]

in play maybe, but I would still definately put it as leaning Kerry. It's worth pointing out there are a few suburban counties in PA that are overwhelmingly Republican in voter registration but voted for Gore in 2000. That's because the moderate suburban Republicans didn't want to vote for a right wing extremist like Bush (the same thing happened in a few NY and NJ counties). The same will probably happen for Kerry.

I don't think Bush was seen as an extremist back in 2000.

correct, but he was still too socially conservative for many suburban Republicans. Now that most do see him as an extremist, he'll do even more poorly among them.

[Beet]

Kerry will replicate Gore's support, but will gain among former independents and any new angry demographics, ie. college students, pacifists, Muslims.

College students probably won't be voting in large numbers, and the war issue will revolve more on credibility & national security. Muslims I dunno... they probably aren't a huge percentage of registered voters. Although I do agree that Dean managed to bring some left-leaning independents into the Democratic party.

[Beet]

in play maybe, but I would still definately put it as leaning Kerry. It's worth pointing out there are a few suburban counties in PA that are overwhelmingly Republican in voter registration but voted for Gore in 2000. That's because the moderate suburban Republicans didn't want to vote for a right wing extremist like Bush (the same thing happened in a few NY and NJ counties). The same will probably happen for Kerry.

I don't think Bush was seen as an extremist back in 2000.

correct, but he was still too socially conservative for many suburban Republicans. Now that most do see him as an extremist, he'll do even more poorly among them.

Hopefully. Kerry needs the suburban counties, the Philly area, and the Pittsburgh area; if he can hold onto all three he can win the state.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Kerry will replicate Gore's support, but will gain among former independents and any new angry demographics, ie. college students, pacifists, Muslims.

College students probably won't be voting in large numbers, and the war issue will revolve more on credibility & national security. Muslims I dunno... they probably aren't a huge percentage of registered voters. Although I do agree that Dean managed to bring some left-leaning independents into the Democratic party.

Bush is losing more cedibility and national security every day. We're seeing that this "economic recovery" is a sham because new jobs aren't being made as well. Therefore, Bush has practically nothing to run on but social issues, and he can't win an election screaming about how we must stop those evil homosexuals from defiling our sacred marriage and must amend the Constitution to stop them. Bush can't run an effective campaign anywhere outside of the Bible Belt.

[zachman]

Setyourselfonfire, what's your take on Minnesota. Which direction has it trended from 2000.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I live in Blue Earth County, in south central Minnesota. It voted for Bush rather marginally in 2000, with Nader taking 6%, more than twice of Gore's margin of loss. The sentiment here has moved to definately being more anti-Bush. The economic conditions in the outstate areas, especially the northwest, have gotten far worse, and this will definately hurt Bush. I think too many people overestimate the signs of the 2002 elections, since not a single Republican in a statewide race got over 50% of the vote. Only Attorney General Mike Hatch, a Democrat did with 54%. What I think happened is the media making a mountain out of a molehill with the Wellstone Memorial increased GOP turnout tilting some marginal races. The biggest issue though I think, is the Nader factor. Nader got 5% here in 2000, and he definately won't be doing that well this year. Also, the voters in suburban Hennepin and Ramsey counties are like the voters in suburban PA, NJ and NY, and while they voted very marginally for Bush in 2000, I think it'll flip and they'll vote for Kerry now because of Bush moving too far to the right on social issues. The most recent poll showed Bush: 41, Kerry: 43. Doesn't look like a resounding lead for Kerry, but keep these things in mind:

1) Undecideds break 2:1 against the incumbent
2) That was long before Kerry started campaigning here for Super Tuesday.

41 is a very weak showing for an incumbent, so I think it would closer to Kerry: 47, Bush: 42 if polled today. So I would have the state as leaning Kerry, although the GOP's going to try to win here and I'll have to put up with their nonsense.

[zachman]

Setyourselfonfire, I feel your pain! Bush is advertising here. Is it worthwhile for him? No. It's great to meet a Bush voter who has switched over. I haven't met a Bush voter who has switched over, just a bunch of angry Rpeublicans, and enthusiastic indpeendents in the democratic primary.

[GOPhound]

Setyourselfonfire, I feel your pain! Bush is advertising here. Is it worthwhile for him? No.

Why is it not worth it for Bush to advertise in NH?  He won it in 2000 (albeit by the smallest of margins) and a recent poll has him ahead there.  

If your assuming NH will go Kerry because he's from the next state, I don't think that has ever had any bearing on any election.  You might say "Everyone here hates Bush.  No way will NH go for Bush.  Trust me."  I said the same thing about my area in 2000.  I was sure Bush would win from talking to people and just gauging the general sentiment.  It ended up going for Gore convincingly.