<< Last Entry - Main Page - Next Entry >>

[05.15.03] Political Swingers This IP-linked Geitner Simmons post on Minnesota's shift to the right provides the perfect segue to this poll of New Jersey voters:

A statewide survey of 500 registered, likely voters conducted on May 6-7, 2003 shows that President Bush would defeat Joe Lieberman, John Kerry or Richard Gephardt if the Presidential election were being held today...

President Bush defeats Joe Lieberman 51%-33%. The President defeats John Kerry 51%-32%, and Bush beats Richard Gephardt 49%-33%.

We saw this coming as early as the 2000 election. The presidential vote in Iowa was much closer than it should have been in Old Democrat Populist country. And Bush ran away with Missouri, long considered a swing state. It appears that the "redness" of the interior west, the great plains and mountain regions, is finally permeating the old farm belt (or is that the rust belt? Whatever.) Anyway, the trend should continue in these states and may or may not make it to the Great Lakes region. The big industrial states all seem to have their own distinct political personality. Some lean blue (Penn, Illinois, Wisconsin), some lean red (Ohio, Indy), with Michigan right in the political center. As a MI native, I don't think we'll see much change in most of these states, though Wisconsin may follow the lead of its neighbors and move to the right a bit. Also, Illinois seems intent on becoming the Massachusetts of the Midwest, so we'll see.

Posted by: Dave at May 15, 2003 05:18:50 PM

But why is this true? I don't think there is some great demographic trend going on in these states leading to a permanent Republican majority. I think the answer is rather simple.

Posted by: blaster at May 15, 2003 09:56:08 PM

The polls right now really are meaningless, I doubt any of the GOP insiders are counting on 2004 to be a blowout.

That said, I agree that the 2000 election really represented a Democratic high water mark for the suburbs. 2000 still had a booming economy, and many suburban voters did not want to rock the boat so to speak. Another big factor that was not discussed was in 2000, the GOP still had the stigma of being considerd extremists. Clinton managed to capitalise on various PR mistakes the Gingrich led house comitted, and this hurt the GOP more in the suburbs than anywhere else. All things being equal, if the economy does not collapse between now in Nov 04, and if the Democrats do not nominate a McGovern/Mondale style canidate, I would expect the 04 numbers to be similar to the 88 numbers. I also think that GOP support in the suburbs in the midwest and mid Atlantic regions to surge by 5-10% points because GW Bush, not Gingrich or Armey is the face of the GOP now.

I doubt Bush will win NY, CA, CONN, VT, RI, and MD in 04, but he has a excellent shot at MI, PA, ME, WI, IA and MN in 04, even IL will be in play if as I expect, suburban vote for the GOP goes up 5-10%.

Posted by: John B at May 15, 2003 10:20:25 PM

I read the other day that the Democrats have group called Project 5104--for 51% of the vote in 2004. The interesting thing is while this sounds like a pretty modest goal to begin with, it's in fact more than the Democrats have managed in 13 of the last 14 elections. The only time since 1944 that the Democrats have managed 51% of the vote was in 1964, under rather special circumstances.

Provided the economy begins to show improvement, which I fully expect, Bush will probably be in the 60% range. He strikes me as similar to Reagan, in that he was heavily criticized for the economy in his early years, but generally applauded on defense. If the economy turns around the way it did for Reagan, the Democrats won't have anything to run on.

Posted by: Pat Curley at May 16, 2003 01:47:55 AM

John B has some good insights. The 2004 race basically has 2 likely outcomes: a 5-10 pt Bush victory that garners 350-400 electoral votes or a 10-15 pt victory that captures around 450-500 ev's. The first scenario would be similar to the races of 1988 and 1996 and would probably occur if the Dems run a Gephardt or an Edwards. The latter scenario models the 1964/1972 elections and is most likely if Dean is the nominee. The most probable Dem nominee, Kerry, kind of falls in between.

Under Scenario I, Bush takes the South, Interior West, and Northern Midwest, basically everything he took last time plus MN, WI, IA, MI, PA, and possibly IL. The Dems maintain their hold on the West Coast and everything northeast of New York, with the exception of West Berlin, I mean, New Hampshire. Scenario II would allow Bush to not only lock up the Midwest but also make inroads into the Northeast and West Coast. Oregon could fall. So could NJ, ME, and MD. And with Bush's popularity in NY, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him pull out a victory, esp if Rudy runs for Senate.

Posted by: Dave at May 16, 2003 11:20:32 AM

Don't count on PA being a lock for Bush. I think he'll end up winning, but by no means is it a certain. This state is funny like that, Philly seems to just throw the whole thing in a jumble.

Posted by: chrisapps at May 16, 2003 12:18:14 PM

Good points by all. Assuming the economy improves (I think it will) and continued success in foreign issues I'm thinking along the lines of Bush by 12 (56-44), GOP +4-6 Senate, GOP pickups in House. The GOP rout looks possible now but I'm expecting tightening and some of Bush's shine to come off (through Dem attacks) by the time 11/04 rolls around.
Chris - as for PA I once heard it described as 2 New Yorks (Pittsburgh and Philly) with Georgia in-between (middle of the state.

Posted by: AWW at May 16, 2003 12:35:07 PM

Ok, all good points - and can anyone here come up with a plausible scenario which has the Democrats winning next year? I know there are scenarios you can draw for a Dem win, but 20% unemployment or Bush found to be an iguana genetically modified to become a Republican are both highly unlikely...

To me, 2004 will finally do what I've been looking for since 1980 - the re-alignment of the American political scene in favor of a center-right coalition. Its been a long, hard fight against the desperate leftist rear guard, but if we just work real hard next year we'll have won: think about that, guys and gals - we'll have WON.

How many of us have really thought about what we will do when that happens? Guys, we might have 60 GOP Senators in January of 2005 with less than 200 Dems in the House and GW just thumpingly re-elected. What will be our limitations then?

Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 16, 2003 03:59:05 PM

While I agree that the developments of these polls are all welcome, we need to be patient. A lot can happen between now and November 2004. It's entirely possible that the Democrats could get their act together, which I think is unlikely; it's also very possible that Republicans could self-destruct, which I think is possible (see Nixon, Richard; or even Gingrich, Newt).

Nobody more than I wants to see Bush score a landslide win in 2004 than I do, but a lot can happen in the coming months. Let's not start counting our chicks before they're hatched, Mark Noonan.

Posted by: Mike at May 16, 2003 10:04:35 PM

I'd caution everyone that it's way too early to be calling for a landslide just yet. As Mike said, a lot can happen between now and November '04.

That said, W.'s thirty points better than where his father was at this point in the economic cycle and a lot of the credit belongs to the enormous political skill of this President and this White House. Part of the reason I want him to win, aside from my obvious philosophical inclinations, can be likened to why I'd want Tiger Woods or the Jordan Bulls to win every time out: because only when that happens can we be confident that we've seen the game played at the highest levels.

Posted by: Patrick Ruffini at May 16, 2003 10:33:39 PM

Philly isint all that liberal. While downtown Philly has quite a few liberals, it is no NYC or Boston, and Philadelphia along with Detroit are thge biggest metro areas that have had the least changes demographically in the last 20 years. The GOP did badly underperform in the Philly suburbs by about 10 points or so for similar reasons why they underperformed in similar suburbs in the midwest, namey Gore being a quasi incumbent in good economic times and the stigma the GOP still had from the Gov shutdown and impeachment, also ultra intense AFL-CIO get out the vote efforts. As for Pittsbugh, Bush actually did a bit better than his father did in that area. While it is still Democratic leaning, the bulk of the Democrats in the Pittsbugh area are blue collar, it is almost a throwback to the 50s. The district Rep Melissa Hart has for example, gave Dukakis 58% of the vote in 88, and in 00, it Gave Bush 51% of the vote.

At the risk of hi-jacking this thread, I re read the emerging Democratic Majority, and it is amazing how sloppy the authors analysis the results are. For example, they included St Calir and Madison counties IL, across the river from St Louis as "ideoplois" counties, for no logical reason. I can not think of a area of the country that is any more of a 70s relic socially and economically than the cross river St Louis suburbs. I guess there is not enough space to pick a book like this apart

Posted by: John B at May 17, 2003 05:24:36 AM

Mike and Patrick,

Trust me on this one, no one will work harder to help GW get re-elected than me...I'm actually going to save next year's vacation time for the last lap of the election campaign (shhh, don't tell the Mrs...she thinks we're going on a cruise again next year!)...of course, I also await the result of a city council race out here: seems we've got a well-funded, well-known incumbant about to get shellacked by a complete uknown who ginned up her support by walking the precincts and knocking on doors....just brings to mind a certain Democratic Congresscritter out here whom everyone thinks is just oh, so unbeatable and what a grass-roots efforts might do for a completely unkown credit underwriter....

Anyways...like I said: work, work, work and take nothing for granted. But, come on guys, you know in your heart of hearts what I know: GW is going to win big.

Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 19, 2003 12:27:51 AM

I think Sauron was polling pretty well in Anorien two years before the Ring went into the Cracks of Doom.

It's still the economy... well, you know what comes next.

Posted by: Thersites at May 19, 2003 02:56:42 AM

Ah yes the Bush=Sauron analogy. Sorry but I don't see any Frodos, Sams, Aragorns, Gimlis, Legolases, or even Merrys or Pippins in the Dem candidates. Certainly no Gandalfs.
I stick by my prediction above (Bush by 12). The most interesting thing to watch will be the Dems kicking their cats as the improving economy stats come in.

Posted by: AWW at May 19, 2003 10:01:57 AM

Scrappleface.com has it funniest - with an article "quoting" GOP leaders who are bemoaning their fate at only being able to scrape up a former Texas Rangers owner to run next year - and why can't the GOP get a candidate with the stature of a Kerry, or an Edwards?

Posted by: Mark Noonan at May 20, 2003 11:23:44 PM

Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Remember personal info? YesNo

Comments:

Y'all! MT hears you — just click once to see your comment posted.

Syndicate this Site: XML or RDF