POPULAR VOTE ANALYSIS

[Gustaf]

Exactly. Also, I think the war on terror has moved some people into the Bush column, which helps him some. Not sure from where those people are though, admittedly.

[Gustaf]

In 2000, the combined Gore-Nader vote was 51.12% of the popular vote total - the vote for Bush was 47.87%.

Dismissing a major Green or other third party vote in 2004, and holding the  “Other”  vote at it’s 2000 total of 1%, Bush will have to add Gore and/or Nader votes to his total to win

The question is, how many?

The following 2004 scenarios illustrate how changes in the national popular vote will determine which way states go, based on 2000 voting margins in the states. More detail is found in my last post in the “No Nader effect this year?” thread.

SCENARIO 1 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291     Reps 247

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.82% of total popular vote, loses NH, holds FL – elected with minority of PV
PV: Dems 50.3% Reps 48.7%
EV: Reps 274      Dems 264    

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

SCENARIO 4 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327     Reps 211

This thread is for the discussion of these scenarios and your predictions of what the national popular vote may look like in a Bush-Kerry contest.

Why do all of your senarios result in Bush losing the PV?

I think that if Bush run a decent campaign he should score at least 51% of the popular vote.

Only one Democratic candidate has gotten at least 51% of the votes in the presidential election since Truman in 1948, and that's LBJ in 1964.

[Gustaf]

I think Florida should go to Bush this year mainly because last year the major news stations were projecting that Gore won FL and when that happens normally the people who supported the person who lost they're state won't vote, thus why I think FL in 2000 was much closer then it should have been.

As has been pointed out, it can work both ways.

[Gustaf]

I think Florida should go to Bush this year mainly because last year the major news stations were projecting that Gore won FL and when that happens normally the people who supported the person who lost they're state won't vote, thus why I think FL in 2000 was much closer then it should have been.

As has been pointed out, it can work both ways.

Personaly I've never seen it happen the other way around.

I have at least seen people fearing it a lot in Sweden, that is their side is leading big in polls people won't go to the polls, b/c they know they're gonna win big anyway.

[Gustaf]

Here I've noticed people want to be with the winner and will vote for them. and if you were for the loser you consider it a lost cause once your state has been projected for the other candidate.

Not how my mind works(always vote no matter what but my family has traditionaly voted early on election day) but it is what I've seen.

OK, you might be right, but I doubt whether the effect is more than marginal, since you would have to suppose a combination of such a mindset with following the news closely enough to be aware of states getting called, etc.