Title: You were told in March 2004 Bush would win 12 million more votes than in 2000
Post by: 538Electoral on November 18, 2019, 12:53:10 AM
Inspired by OSR's thread. What do you think the map would've looked like?
Title: Re: You were told in March 2004 Bush would win 12 million more votes than in 2000
Post by: OSR stands with Israel on November 18, 2019, 04:35:54 AM
(
)
Bush/Cheney 384 54%
Kerry/Clark 154 45%
CA would be within 3 points and Kerry would spend many resources there to save himself from being defeated worse than even Dukakis did
Bush/Cheney 384 54%
Kerry/Clark 154 45%
CA would be within 3 points and Kerry would spend many resources there to save himself from being defeated worse than even Dukakis did
Title: Re: You were told in March 2004 Bush would win 12 million more votes than in 2000
Post by: lfromnj on November 18, 2019, 12:39:30 PM
Did people not expect a turnout boost? It seemed super polarized compared to 00?
Title: Re: You were told in March 2004 Bush would win 12 million more votes than in 2000
Post by: One Term Floridian on November 18, 2019, 05:38:08 PM
Did people not expect a turnout boost? It seemed super polarized compared to 00?
This. I’m pretty sure everyone knew both parties were going to pick up votes after how relatively low turnout had been in the last several cycles and with a polarizing war raging on.
As energized as the right was in 2004, it couldn’t have been a landslide for Bush because the left would have been just as energized to make him a one-term President. As such, far fewer left-leaning voters would defect to Nader and Kerry would keep states like ME & OR safe for him. I would have also guessed that Kerry’s proximity to NH and Bush’s vulnerability in New England would allow him easier access to flip the 2nd closest Bush state in 2000. However, I still would have bet on a Bush victory in both the popular & electoral vote after knowing he netted that many extra votes.
(
Bush - 296 EV 50%
Kerry - 242 EV 49%
Title: Re: You were told in March 2004 Bush would win 12 million more votes than in 2000
Post by: Arbitrage1980 on November 18, 2019, 05:47:08 PM
Bush 04 was the polar opposite of Trump 16: strong popular vote margin but they were distributed very inefficiently across the states. In 04 Bush won only 2 Gore states: Iowa and New Mexico, and his margins there were below 1%. He lost NH to Kerry by 1.2%.
Bush's 2.5% national margin was due to overpeforming in traditional GOP states such as AZ, CO, TX, IN, GA, NC, VA, and winning FL by a whopping 5%. In 2000 Bush's numbers were undermined by the October surprise of the Maine DUI story, resulting in several million evangelicals staying home. In 04, with the 9/11 effect, the conservative base came out in droves. He also got around 40% of Latinos. Bush also did better in the northeast and California (which he lost by "only" 10%) compared to 2000 but not enough to win those states. Ultimately, Bush's weakness with working class whites prevented him from getting more electoral votes.
Bush's 2.5% national margin was due to overpeforming in traditional GOP states such as AZ, CO, TX, IN, GA, NC, VA, and winning FL by a whopping 5%. In 2000 Bush's numbers were undermined by the October surprise of the Maine DUI story, resulting in several million evangelicals staying home. In 04, with the 9/11 effect, the conservative base came out in droves. He also got around 40% of Latinos. Bush also did better in the northeast and California (which he lost by "only" 10%) compared to 2000 but not enough to win those states. Ultimately, Bush's weakness with working class whites prevented him from getting more electoral votes.