POPULAR VOTE ANALYSIS

[Mort from NewYawk]

In 2000, the combined Gore-Nader vote was 51.12% of the popular vote total - the vote for Bush was 47.87%.

Dismissing a major Green or other third party vote in 2004, and holding the  “Other”  vote at it’s 2000 total of 1%, Bush will have to add Gore and/or Nader votes to his total to win

The question is, how many?

The following 2004 scenarios illustrate how changes in the national popular vote will determine which way states go, based on 2000 voting margins in the states. More detail is found in my last post in the “No Nader effect this year?” thread.

SCENARIO 1 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291     Reps 247

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.82% of total popular vote, loses NH, holds FL – elected with minority of PV
PV: Dems 50.3% Reps 48.7%
EV: Reps 274      Dems 264    

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

SCENARIO 4 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327     Reps 211

This thread is for the discussion of these scenarios and your predictions of what the national popular vote may look like in a Bush-Kerry contest.

[© tweed]

All of the Nader vote won't go to the Dem, maybe 1.25% of it.  Alot of those wackos will stay home.

[Gustaf]

Exactly. Also, I think the war on terror has moved some people into the Bush column, which helps him some. Not sure from where those people are though, admittedly.

[12th Doctor]

In 2000, the combined Gore-Nader vote was 51.12% of the popular vote total - the vote for Bush was 47.87%.

Dismissing a major Green or other third party vote in 2004, and holding the  “Other”  vote at it’s 2000 total of 1%, Bush will have to add Gore and/or Nader votes to his total to win

The question is, how many?

The following 2004 scenarios illustrate how changes in the national popular vote will determine which way states go, based on 2000 voting margins in the states. More detail is found in my last post in the “No Nader effect this year?” thread.

SCENARIO 1 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291     Reps 247

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.82% of total popular vote, loses NH, holds FL – elected with minority of PV
PV: Dems 50.3% Reps 48.7%
EV: Reps 274      Dems 264    

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

SCENARIO 4 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327     Reps 211

This thread is for the discussion of these scenarios and your predictions of what the national popular vote may look like in a Bush-Kerry contest.

Why do all of your senarios result in Bush losing the PV?

I think that if Bush run a decent campaign he should score at least 51% of the popular vote.

[Gustaf]

In 2000, the combined Gore-Nader vote was 51.12% of the popular vote total - the vote for Bush was 47.87%.

Dismissing a major Green or other third party vote in 2004, and holding the  “Other”  vote at it’s 2000 total of 1%, Bush will have to add Gore and/or Nader votes to his total to win

The question is, how many?

The following 2004 scenarios illustrate how changes in the national popular vote will determine which way states go, based on 2000 voting margins in the states. More detail is found in my last post in the “No Nader effect this year?” thread.

SCENARIO 1 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291     Reps 247

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.82% of total popular vote, loses NH, holds FL – elected with minority of PV
PV: Dems 50.3% Reps 48.7%
EV: Reps 274      Dems 264    

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

SCENARIO 4 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327     Reps 211

This thread is for the discussion of these scenarios and your predictions of what the national popular vote may look like in a Bush-Kerry contest.

Why do all of your senarios result in Bush losing the PV?

I think that if Bush run a decent campaign he should score at least 51% of the popular vote.

Only one Democratic candidate has gotten at least 51% of the votes in the presidential election since Truman in 1948, and that's LBJ in 1964.

[zachman]

Here is my calculation: Gore was a weak democrat, and anyone who voted for him will vote for Kerry. Bush had surprisingly high support last time from swing voters. Since 2000, he has lost this appeal. His winning scenario, is to increase the size of his voting base. 3rd party movements will be unsubstantial in this election.

[agcatter]

I think Miami made another valid point in that some Nader voters will not vote.  In addition, a small percentage will vote for Bush, and another small percentage will stick with the green candidate.  Then there is the Buchanan vote (around 450,000 or whatever it was) that Bush should get the most benefit of.   In any event, I think we  can all agree that we are looking at a very tough, tight election.

[opebo]

I think in a close contest you'ld see most of Bush's vote increase in Florida, which is all he needs to win.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him win with 100,000 more votes in Florida, and a lot more than 100,000 fewer in 'Gore states', leading to re-election with an even lower percentage of the popular vote.  God I love the electoral college!

[NHPolitico]

In 2000, the combined Gore-Nader vote was 51.12% of the popular vote total - the vote for Bush was 47.87%.

Dismissing a major Green or other third party vote in 2004, and holding the  “Other”  vote at it’s 2000 total of 1%, Bush will have to add Gore and/or Nader votes to his total to win

The question is, how many?

The following 2004 scenarios illustrate how changes in the national popular vote will determine which way states go, based on 2000 voting margins in the states. More detail is found in my last post in the “No Nader effect this year?” thread.

SCENARIO 1 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291     Reps 247

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.82% of total popular vote, loses NH, holds FL – elected with minority of PV
PV: Dems 50.3% Reps 48.7%
EV: Reps 274      Dems 264    

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

SCENARIO 4 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327     Reps 211

This thread is for the discussion of these scenarios and your predictions of what the national popular vote may look like in a Bush-Kerry contest.

He has to add 3 million votes just to make up for demographic trends among Hispanics and other minorities.

[Mort from NewYawk]

In 2000, the combined Gore-Nader vote was 51.12% of the popular vote total - the vote for Bush was 47.87%.

Dismissing a major Green or other third party vote in 2004, and holding the  “Other”  vote at it’s 2000 total of 1%, Bush will have to add Gore and/or Nader votes to his total to win

The question is, how many?

The following 2004 scenarios illustrate how changes in the national popular vote will determine which way states go, based on 2000 voting margins in the states. More detail is found in my last post in the “No Nader effect this year?” thread.

SCENARIO 1 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291     Reps 247

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.82% of total popular vote, loses NH, holds FL – elected with minority of PV
PV: Dems 50.3% Reps 48.7%
EV: Reps 274      Dems 264    

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

SCENARIO 4 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327     Reps 211

This thread is for the discussion of these scenarios and your predictions of what the national popular vote may look like in a Bush-Kerry contest.

Why do all of your senarios result in Bush losing the PV?

I think that if Bush run a decent campaign he should score at least 51% of the popular vote.

Scenario 3 shows Bush winning the PV, 49.8% to 49.2%, enough to give him a 300 to 238 decisive EV win.

For the sake of the illustration, I did two scenarios apiece showing Dem EV wins and Rep EV wins. Three of the scenarios show a Bush gain in PV.

I agree it's quite plausible that Bush could get 51% of the PV. If he did, according to this method he would shift 3.13% of the Gore/Nader vote, and in addition to IA, NM and WS, he would pick up OR and make PA a dead heat.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Only one Democratic candidate has gotten at least 51% of the votes in the presidential election since Truman in 1948, and that's LBJ in 1964.

Interesting stat. Three Republicans have done it since then:

Nixon 60.7% against McGovern 1972
Reagan 58.8% against Mondale 1984
GHW Bush 53.4% against Dukakis 1988

[12th Doctor]

Only one Democratic candidate has gotten at least 51% of the votes in the presidential election since Truman in 1948, and that's LBJ in 1964.

Interesting stat. Three Republicans have done it since then:

Nixon 60.7% against McGovern 1972
Reagan 58.8% against Mondale 1984
GHW Bush 53.4% against Dukakis 1988

Reagan also did it in 1980.  He got 51%.

[TheWildCard]

I think Florida should go to Bush this year mainly because last year the major news stations were projecting that Gore won FL and when that happens normally the people who supported the person who lost they're state won't vote, thus why I think FL in 2000 was much closer then it should have been.

[12th Doctor]

In 2000, the combined Gore-Nader vote was 51.12% of the popular vote total - the vote for Bush was 47.87%.

Dismissing a major Green or other third party vote in 2004, and holding the  “Other”  vote at it’s 2000 total of 1%, Bush will have to add Gore and/or Nader votes to his total to win

The question is, how many?

The following 2004 scenarios illustrate how changes in the national popular vote will determine which way states go, based on 2000 voting margins in the states. More detail is found in my last post in the “No Nader effect this year?” thread.

SCENARIO 1 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291     Reps 247

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.82% of total popular vote, loses NH, holds FL – elected with minority of PV
PV: Dems 50.3% Reps 48.7%
EV: Reps 274      Dems 264    

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

SCENARIO 4 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327     Reps 211

This thread is for the discussion of these scenarios and your predictions of what the national popular vote may look like in a Bush-Kerry contest.

Why do all of your senarios result in Bush losing the PV?

I think that if Bush run a decent campaign he should score at least 51% of the popular vote.

Scenario 3 shows Bush winning the PV, 49.8% to 49.2%, enough to give him a 300 to 238 decisive EV win.

For the sake of the illustration, I did two scenarios apiece showing Dem EV wins and Rep EV wins. Three of the scenarios show a Bush gain in PV.

I agree it's quite plausible that Bush could get 51% of the PV. If he did, according to this method he would shift 3.13% of the Gore/Nader vote, and in addition to IA, NM and WS, he would pick up OR and make PA a dead heat.

Sorry, senario 3 does show Bush winning the PV.  My mistake.

[Gustaf]

I think Florida should go to Bush this year mainly because last year the major news stations were projecting that Gore won FL and when that happens normally the people who supported the person who lost they're state won't vote, thus why I think FL in 2000 was much closer then it should have been.

As has been pointed out, it can work both ways.

[Nym90]

No, Reagan didn't get 51%. You have to round up to the nearest whole number to get him to 51%.

[TheWildCard]

I think Florida should go to Bush this year mainly because last year the major news stations were projecting that Gore won FL and when that happens normally the people who supported the person who lost they're state won't vote, thus why I think FL in 2000 was much closer then it should have been.

As has been pointed out, it can work both ways.

Personaly I've never seen it happen the other way around.

[Gustaf]

I think Florida should go to Bush this year mainly because last year the major news stations were projecting that Gore won FL and when that happens normally the people who supported the person who lost they're state won't vote, thus why I think FL in 2000 was much closer then it should have been.

As has been pointed out, it can work both ways.

Personaly I've never seen it happen the other way around.

I have at least seen people fearing it a lot in Sweden, that is their side is leading big in polls people won't go to the polls, b/c they know they're gonna win big anyway.

[TheWildCard]

Here I've noticed people want to be with the winner and will vote for them. and if you were for the loser you consider it a lost cause once your state has been projected for the other candidate.

Not how my mind works(always vote no matter what but my family has traditionaly voted early on election day) but it is what I've seen.

[Gustaf]

Here I've noticed people want to be with the winner and will vote for them. and if you were for the loser you consider it a lost cause once your state has been projected for the other candidate.

Not how my mind works(always vote no matter what but my family has traditionaly voted early on election day) but it is what I've seen.

OK, you might be right, but I doubt whether the effect is more than marginal, since you would have to suppose a combination of such a mindset with following the news closely enough to be aware of states getting called, etc.

[Nym90]

Exactly. The people who pay the most attention to when states are called are the people who are most likely to vote for their candidate no matter what. People who don't care enough to vote if they know their guy is going to lose are more likely to be the ones who don't watch the election returns on election night, or if they do at the very least to not be hanging on every word.

We have to realize that we are political junkies here, and a lot of people don't watch election night returns with nearly the vigor that we do.