Talk Elections

What do you guys think would happen if either of these candidates got a magic surge due to some external factor, such as his opponent screwing up big time?

I think a Kerry surge might look like this:
()
Dem - 366
Rep - 172

Compared to a Bush surge:
()
Dem- 176
Rep - 362

The Bush surge map looks a lot more believable than the Kerry one - Kerry is certainly not going to win Colorado, and Arizona, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana are nearly as unlikely.  Even NV is a big stretch.

The only state that looks unlikely on the Bush surge map is maybe Michigan.. or Maine.

Looks like you forgot your home state in the big surge, Lunar.

I think Kerry will get California by a bigger margin than Gore, that's why.

Kerry wouldn't pick up Missouri if Bush had a scandal or something?

The 'Bush surge' looks like my prediction map.

If anything, I think the differences are not dramatic enough.  If Kerry wins by 10 points, he could take Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.  If Bush wins by 10, he could take Washington and maybe Illinois.  Either of these results if possible, if unlikely.

Surely you jest.  You know california likes very conservative Democrats with no personality (have you forgotten our recently ousted Governor so soon?)

California 2000 president:

Gore:  5,861,203
Bush:  4,567,429

Kerry'll do better?!  I'll assume you're joking, for the moment.

I don't think you can draw a line from Davis to Kerry.  I suppose you and I have a fundamental disagreement.  I think that Northern Calofornia is getting more liberal, not less, and that the Hispanic vote is growing.

Because you are predicting a Bush surge, no?

I guess you could say that.

I don't think Bush can win California ever in his nest case scenario.  Picking up 1.3 million votes seems like a stretch to me.  

I have never drawn a line from Governor Davis to anywhere.  I'm sure you haven't forgotten all those talking heads in 2001-02 suggesting Gray Davis as a possible Democrat Presidential nominee for 2004.  What you may have forgotten is that none of them were Republicans.

Northern California may or may not be growing more liberal, but George Bu$h is certainly far more liberal than he ran as president ("my opponent trusts the government, I trust the people.")  In any case I'll not argue whether this part of the state is more or less so, because I have no objective studies on which to base such a conclusion.  The rapid influx of asians which would have lead to a greater degree of social and economic conservatism has been curtailed by the current congress, unfortunately, along with just about every other group.  I do know that every democrat (and republican) I know here in Alameda County is far less liberal than I on social issues and far more liberal than I on economic ones, but that doesn't much matter.

Hispanics certainly are the fastest growing segment.  Why would I pick a fight with the United States Census Bureau?  This is not a subject of debate, but a simple fact.  This demographic will be taken for granted by the Democrats and will be actively courted by the Republicans.

All lines of logic lead to a smaller Kerry victory here than the victory of Gore over Bush here.  I still think the Bush folks would be wise to spend a huge amount of money out here to (1) force the Democrats to do so and (2) hang on to whatever remains of the dignity of the GOP in California by ensuring victory for those congressional seats whenever possible.

Angus,

Asians are not Republicans. Nor are they trending Republican. Bush did worse then Bob Dole did among Asians. Considering that the consensus is that Bush will do much worse in the Muslim community, and his apparent hostility to the outside world, I think Bush will do even worse among Asians.

Secondly, democrats aren't going to ignore Hispanics like they did last time. Hell, Bill Richardson was/is a top tier choice for Veep. Despite Bush's efforts to woo Hispanics the new millions will still break Dem (but by possibly thinner margins).

The election of Arnold has helped democrats in the state. Gives them someone to demonize and fundraise and get all riled up about. Not to mention there is no Gray Davis making Dems look bad.


Bush won't break 5 million votes in California.  Bush won't get within a million of Kerry.

By the way:

Bush surge:

()

 Bush 370 to 168


Kerry surge, with Brokaw as running mate and Roy Moore entering the race (and surging too):

()

Kerry 427
Bush 97
Moore 14

I think if either candidate screws up, it still won't make a great deal of difference. As I see it, the West Coast and North East are certain to be Democrat and the West/South Republican. There's no way in a million years NY will vote for Bush.

The states to watch I think will be NV (might go Dem due to expanding Las Vegas), Iowa, NM & Wisconsin will go Republican.
WV & NH will go Democrat. As for FL & OH, optimistically I'll say Democrat! :-/

A best case scenario for Kerry would include Roy Moore running...

Kerry would win MS and NC if Moore ran and did well enough to win two states.

hello kghadial,
always good to read your posts.  a couple of points:  I did not mean to suggest or have you infer that asians are trending republican.  I simply stated the fact that they are among the most economically conservative and socially conservative demographics out there.  (not that there are no asian republicans, as two very well informed asian republicans filled the "asians" thread with very interesting posts, I'm not sure if you were here yet.)

The hispanic paragraph was total speculation I admit.  But the two most populous states in the union are 1/3 hispanic each.  That amounts to eleven million in this state and about 7.5 million in texas.  This demographic voted about twice as much to re-elect gov bush in 98 as compared to 94, and many speculate that nationwide he'll get more support this time than in 2000.  I think it's a reasonable assumption.  But you're right, Democrats can read and will attempt to counteract this.  Like Asians, they tend to have much lower VAP voters, and like asians, those that do vote split about 65-70% or maybe a little less to the Dems.

You are exactly right about Arnold.  Most of the right wing of the republican party wanted Davis to stay in and try to defeat him in 2006, and very little of the right wing of this party voted for Arnold (I think McClintock got over 10%, meaning some must have sold out to pragmatism).  My guy came in around 14th of 162 in that special election, by the way.  He was a far left republican who probably has more in common with the Libertarians, but who is a proud registered Republican who claims to support Bush.  

Nevertheless, I haven't changed my original map since I posted it:  

Bush 283    
Generic Democrat 255

Have a nice day.  :)

Don't be so worried about Iowa and Wisconsin.  Job losses have been huge, and the democratic base (which greatly outnumbers the republican one) is one of the more liberal, anti-bush in the country.  Bush did well there in 2000 because people actually believed he was a moderate and he had that outsider appeal a Washington insider like Gore could never have.

My regular map looks a lot like that.  That's how it probably will be.

Try Deleware.  Deleware?  There isn't any way that Bush will take Delaware.  Period.

Ian, I don't see that happening without a Bush scandal of some sort.  And I agree about Delaware.

A couple more points of relevance to the earlier posts, and to anyone interested in CA statistics.  According to California Journal (March 2004 issue), Democrat registration is at its lowest point since the 1930s.  From 2000 to 2004 the GOP saw a one percent registration increase to 35.7%.  In that same period, the Democrat registration fell more than two points to 43.1%.  DTS also increased to 16.3%.  (I'm an outlier in that I went from DTS to partisan during that period.)

In a joint appearance last January, Duf Sundheim, the chair of California Republican Party, and Art Torres, who chairs the state's Democrat Party, agreed that the health of a political party depends on its relevance, ability to communicate, and leadership.  During the period in question in this post and the previous ones, both party leaders agree the Democrats have lost stature in the state.  They do not agree on whether the GOP has gained stature.

Just thought you might find this interesting.  Again, I do not color this state blue in my prediction map, but do not assume that just because Kerry is a better candidate than Gore (and who isn't?) that he will widen the margin.  This interesting article focuses on the Governor, and you know I'm no big fan of his and I'm no big fan of overestimating his influence, but if you'd like to read it, the article is from the March 2004 issue and begins on page 28.  There's a related article beginning on page 34.

Ah, the related article states that both party chairs agree that recently enacted state campaign finance laws benefit the GOP over the Democrats.  Art Torres is quoted as saying, "The Republican party is ... ahead of Democrats [in this state] in terms of small contributions ... we're not used to collecting like them.  That's why Republicans are going to have the advantage."  Similar quotes from his opponents show bipartisan agreement on this point.  It goes on to list all sorts of exit polling data over the past few years.  Again, I'd recommend this article to anyone, Rep or Dem, who wants to meddle in the internal politics of this state.

California isn't the only states Republicans have huge voter registration drives. The Wash. Post recently reported Republican registration in Calvert county, Md., which has had a Democratic advantage for decades, recently exceeded Democratic registration for the first time. Shortly after that, Democratic registration once again took the lead, but probably not for long... Any look at national party identification shows Republicans reaching parity with Democrats since 9-11 for the first time since the 1930s. The % Democratic identifiers peaked in the 1960s, when the whole country was practically Democrat. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, a lot of this was lost to Independents, who surged as a demographic at the cost of both parties. By the late 1970s, only about 20% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans, and some newsmagazines were predicting the end of that party. During the '80s, Republican identification rose, Democratic identification declined, but this was halted during the Clinton years. The slide for Dems resumed again starting around 2000. If current trends continue, there will be more registered Republicans by Nov. 1 than registered Democrats, for the first time in 70 years.

good point.  and the 1960s, those were the days, eh?  2/3 of both houses Democrat, viet nam, tax and spend, johnson's great society, and Kerry & Bush fellow yalies skulling.

Naturally I like the 60s... times of unpredecented prosperity and opportunity. The only black spot was Vietnam.

Always good reading your posts angus,
I didn't mean that there are NO asian republicans, but   that asians relative conservatism would have little affect on california's politics even if they had greater numbers

About Bush and Hispanics ...
The Texas economy during Bush's first Term was very good. Groups that tend to have high unemployment, like Hispanics, are predisposed to voting with their pocketbook so Bush got their vote in his reelection bid. Considering this, the fact that the unemployment rate is about 2% higher (considering the discouraged as well) than 3.5 years ago , and that Hispanics often are "last hired, first fired" it seems logical to me that their pained pocketbooks might make them less predisposed to be amused by bush

The US is far more prosperous now, its just more unequal.  The sixties sowed the seeds of inflation - which interestingly is connected to the egalitarianism.