Is Wisconsin the bellweather for 2004?

[J-Mann]

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

[J-Mann]

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

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.

[J-Mann]

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.

[J-Mann]

I do.

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

[J-Mann]

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.

[J-Mann]

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.