Election 2004 Predicted

I’m going to go off on a limb and try and predict the direction of the Presidential election in 2004. Usually predictions this far out aren’t terrifically accurate, but as Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg notes in his new book on politics in America (which is worth reading despite a certain amount of pro-Democratic bias), we’re in a unique political situation. The parties have reached a parity that makes certain states solidly Democratic and other solidly Republican. There are only a few states that will decide 2004, and those are the ones we’ll concentrate on. I’m also assuming that the nomination goes to Dean, although the same basic pattern would appear with any of the viable Democratic candidates. I’ll also be using this Pew Research study as well as Greenberg’s book as a guide to the current political climate. Also, for my maps, I used this brilliant little electoral vote map applet.

So, without further ado, let’s present my predicted map of 2004:

First, let’s review the solidly Democrat states. The West Coast is solidly Democratic despite advances by the GOP in states like California. Despite the 5% increase in GOP voter identification in California, it would take a miracle for Bush to win that state. However, expect California to be a battleground nevertheless as Bush forces the Dean to spend money on defense. Schwarzenegger’s ability to act as a campaign asset will also help Bush, but not enough to win. Oregon and Washington could come into play, but the chances of a GOP upset there are slim.

Arizona remains in the GOP camp, and while New Mexico may have gone to Gore in 2000, the GOP has seen a 6% increase in GOP voter ID. Even with the increase in the Hispanic population, that likely puts New Mexico into the Bush camp.

Moving westward, we get firmly into Bush country. None of these states are a surprise, and the GOP has a firm grip on the west. Expect Bush to stop to help GOP candidates and raise funds, but don’t expect Dean to make any inroads in this area of the country.

Now here’s where I go off on a limb for a bit. I gave Minnesota to Bush in 2004. This is somewhat of a wild prediction, as Minnesota hasn’t gone for a GOP candidate since the Nixon landslide of 1972. However, the political climate in Minnesota has changed. Party ID in Minnesota has reached a 41%-41% parity between the GOP and the DFL. The Minnesota Republican Party is a well-oiled political machine with an expect GOTV system and good fundraising. Minnesota will be a major battleground state, but I believe that Dean will very narrowly lose in Minnesota due to the continuing political shift in the state.

Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin are all reliably Democrat, although they could also be upsets for Dean if his campaign starts to slide. Iowa is especially vulnerable as the GOP has seen a surge in voter ID in this state. Bush could carry Iowa, although I suspect a narrow Democratic win in this state due to the advantage of having a Democratic governor. Even Karl Rove figures that bully pulpit gives a party a 1-2% boost in the Presidential polls, and research seems to support this contention. Expect Des Moines to be a center of political activity for both parties. Illinois is as solidly Democratic as they come, and Bush has very little chance of breaking that electoral stronghold.

Ohio is the next major battleground state. The Democrats could win Ohio, which would present a major challenge for Bush. However, if the Dems win in Ohio and Bush wins Minnesota, Bush still walks away with 273 electoral votes, enough to win. Look for Ohio to be the Florida of 2004, in which both candidates will spend lots of time and money to win the election. However, Ohio went for Bush in 2000 by about 4%, and even without Nader Bush would have been able to squeak by. Looking at a recent University of Cincinnati poll, Bush seems to have a lock on 55-61% of the electorate, a good sign for him. However, the GOP has also narrowly lost some voter ID to the Democrats, which is worrying. I would bet on a narrow Bush win as in 2000, but he’ll have to fight for it.

Florida is the next battleground state from 2000. Except in this election, Florida won’t be a battleground anymore. GOP party ID is up 6% in Florida, and the GOP has a narrow lead in party ID against the Democrats. Florida will be a hard-fought race nevertheless, but Bush has a very solid chance at winning.

The Democrats have lost the South, no matter who the nominee is. The only two Democrats who could win in the South were Lieberman or Edwards, and both don’t have a chance at the nomination. In essence, the Democrats have pissed away 166 electoral votes right out of the gate. Don’t look for Dean’s false appeals to the South to gain him any traction with the deeply religious and politically conservative South. The "solid South" is back, except now it’s solidly Republican.

However, the Democrats have a nearly solid lock on the Northeast. There’s 113 electoral votes that they have a solid lock on. There is one exception to that rule in New Hampshire, where Bush took a slim lead over Gore. I’m doubting that Bush will lose any states he won in 2000, although New Hampshire could still be a battleground. I’m not sure if Dean’s regional background will give him an edge in NH. He does have a good ground operation there from the primaries, which may give him the edge. This is one of the few red states I could see joining the blue side in 2004.

So, where does this all leave us?

This table actually gives the Democrats a bigger advantage that many would. I consider states like Wisconsin and Michigan safe Democrat rather than being swing states. For example, Greenberg’s table looks like this:

Of course, Greenberg considers states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania to be "swing states" even though I see more of a strong political polarization in those states. I wouldn’t count on Bush winning in Pennsylvania or Dean winning in Arkansas anytime soon. Then again, some of the battle lines for 2004 may change in the next few months as Election Day draws near.

Here’s my electoral breakdown of where I see the race going.

In the end, I’m predicting that George W. Bush wins the popular vote by a narrow majority and wins the electoral college by a margin of 289 votes to 249. It won’t be a 1972-style landslide, but it won’t be a 2000-style deadlock either. In the end, my money is on Bush, and the numbers seem to confirm that contention. I’ll be updating these figures as the campaign continues to see how the political fortunes change over time.