Is Pennsylvania "in play"..?

[The Vorlon]

Much to my own surprise, when I did my weekly prediction map update, I have (oh so marginally) swung Pennsylvania into the Bush column.  This, along with moving Washington State from Lean Kerry to Solid Kerry, were my only two changes.

There have been 7 polls I could find on Pennsylvania in the past 5 weeks, showing anything from Kerry +2 to Bush +4.  Most telling, however, is the shift in voter registration.  Since 2000, the state has gone from a modest +4 Democratic advantage in registrations to essentially parity.  Given that Gore won by just a tad over 4%, it is clear that Pennsylvania should be a barn burner..


[

I freely admit how close Pennsylvania is surprises me, I had expected Kerry to be able to run a fairly modest campaign to hold the keystone state - I was thinking Kerry +5 or 6 initially..

To the degree that the playing field gets bigger, this certainly hurts Kerry in the sense that McCain/Feingold has hurt the Democrats far more the the GOP, and the Bush cash advantage, in practical terms, is far larger in 2004 than it was in 2000.

Does anybody else have any states that they think are a "surprise" this time around, and why...?

[Platypus]

Florida ould be a surprise, because there could be a massive turnout of dems angry with the 2000 result. In fact, there WILL be. It's just a matter of whether the GOP can counteract it-and unfortunetly, i think they can.

Iowa could go either way, ditto MN, PN and WV. Ohio is leaning Bush in my opinion, but who knows. Kerry will win NH, Bush will win NM, Or will almost certainly go Kerry, as will Michigan.

Bush will win MO, AZ and TN.

I think that's all the swing states.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Is your prediction map based on your personal opinions, or is is some sort of formula based on polls/results/voter reg, etc.?  

I agree the recent polls in PA have suggested that it is a toss-up state.  But all the polls in the past month in FL and OH show a (modest) Kerry lead, and you have them down as Bush states.

[The Vorlon]

Florida ould be a surprise, because there could be a massive turnout of dems angry with the 2000 result. In fact, there WILL be. It's just a matter of whether the GOP can counteract it-and unfortunetly, i think they can.

Iowa could go either way, ditto MN, PN and WV. Ohio is leaning Bush in my opinion, but who knows. Kerry will win NH, Bush will win NM, Or will almost certainly go Kerry, as will Michigan.

Bush will win MO, AZ and TN.

I think that's all the swing states.

I think the "angry democrats" factor in Florida ia vastly overplayed.

Firstly, Donna Brazille, Gore's campaign manager in 2000, did a really amazing job of voter turnout in 2000 - I just don't know how much higher democratic turnout can actually go.

Secondly, wasn't this same "Democrat Anger" going to sweep Bother Jeb Bush from the Governor's office in Florida in 2002....?  Jeb won by 13+ % in an (almost) landslide...  Granted, a governors race is not a presidential race, and Jeb is a better Governor than George is a President,...  but still +13% for Brother Jeb still cannot be ignored...

Thirdly, Bush actually won Seniors (50/46) in Florida in 2000.. given that "old" seniors (70+) are far more Democratic than "young" seniors (55-70), and that (naturally) the "old" are dying off faster than the "young" I expect Bush's senior margin will likely grow in 2004.....

[Beet]

Here's what I got back in November 2003 (loosely) based on that Gallup chart:



It should be noted that the Republicans' broad strategy is not a secret... mount a full scale offensive against the upper midwest (MN, WI, IA), and hold Florida at all costs. Hedge your bets by putting Michigan and Pennsylvania in play. All this is reflected by the spending.

Kerry's emerging strategy seems to be give up Florida (Bush is outspending him 2-1 in that state), defend all the Gore states, and take Ohio.

[12th Doctor]

This doesn't suprise me in the least.  It's what I've been saying for the past two weeks.  I thought Kerry would win in PA, I know longer believe that.  I now think that Bush could acctually lose Ohio and win in PA.

[The Vorlon]

Is your prediction map based on your personal opinions, or is is some sort of formula based on polls/results/voter reg, etc.?  

I agree the recent polls in PA have suggested that it is a toss-up state.  But all the polls in the past month in FL and OH show a (modest) Kerry lead, and you have them down as Bush states.

Right now most polls at the state level just don't work right.  

I wrote a fairly long piece on this a few weeks back which is (I think) in the big "thread" with like 2000 replies..

The very abbreviated version is as follows...

Only half the adult population (maybe 51 or 52%) actually votes.

 To make polls semi-reliable, polling firms use a series of questions (usually from 5 to 13 questions) to screen out the "likely" from the "unlikely" voter.  (or just use "registered voters" which typically is 3 0r 4% more democratic than the pool of "likely" voters anyway)

8 months out the screens don't work very well.

The democratic "base", due to the excitement of the primaries, plus the fact that the democratic base has far more "really" hard core voters (union members, assorted special interests, activists of all stripes, elderly, etc) is now, incorrectly, judged by these "screens" to be far more likely to vote than the GOP base, which typically does not "tune in" till after the conventions.

From now till +/- the conventions start, most state polls, which tend to be done by sub-first tier polling firms, will systemically show a bias of about 4 or 5% towards the democratic candidate.

During the conventions themselves, all polls are useless.

From roughly the end of the conventions till about October the polls are again skewed as the GOP base has "tuned in", while the casual voters (who tend to break for the Democrats) have not tuned in..  

Consequently, in September/Early/Mid October most state polls will have a 3 or 4% pro-GOP bias.

Finally, when we are maybe 3 weeks out and the "casual" voters start tuning in, the polls get really usesful.

[Platypus]

Personally, I think they will both go the same way, and whichever way that is decides the winner.

if they both go to Bush, he is re-elected, both to Kerry, he wins. I d0oubt they'll be split, but I can't really sbstantiate on the feeling.

It's kind of like splitting Iowa and Wisconsin-whilst they arent all that similar, they always vote similarly.

[Beet]

Personally, I think they will both go the same way, and whichever way that is decides the winner.

if they both go to Bush, he is re-elected, both to Kerry, he wins. I d0oubt they'll be split, but I can't really sbstantiate on the feeling.

It's kind of like splitting Iowa and Wisconsin-whilst they arent all that similar, they always vote similarly.

Yes I agree. The differences between these states are so small that it would take an extremely close election like 2000 is order to produce a split result. And I still think 2000 was an anomaly; the probability that this year's election will be that close is very small.

[The Vorlon]

More of State polls this far out....

(reposted from about a month ago)

The question of what type of turnout helps which party is a little more complex than you suggest...

The really really hardcore base vote is strongly democratic.  If turnout is below say 42-44% or so the GOP is in HUGE trouble, as the Union members, activists, government employess, & government dependant individuals are the most reliable of all voters.

The last 10 years or so has seen the GOP and Democrats in something very close to parity at the House and Senate level.  The change from the years prior to 1994 and today is actually not that the Dems have gotten fewer votes, or that the GOP is more popular - the Dem base has stayed about the same - it is actually that the GOP "Ground Game" has gotten much, much better, and raised GOP turnout.. (the Dems are STILL better at it than the GOP, but the GOP is at least in the game)

When turnout is right around 48-50% or so, this tends to favour the GOP, as the next most reliable set of voters tends to be part of the base GOP constituency.

Finally, when turnout get to be 53+% or so things swing back to the Dems because the occasional or intermittent voters, when they choose to vote, tend towards the Democrats.

The above voter patterns/trends make it very very hard to do accurate polling.

Prior to the Voter Fraud Promotion & Enablement Act "Motor Voter" act, polling was much easier - If somebody took the time and effort to actually go down to their local courthouse and register to vote, they were a likely voter.  You asked somebody if they had registered, and if they had - you counted them in the survey results.

Because of "Moter Voter" the number of people registered to vote has gone up dramatically, but most of the newly registered simply don't vote.  Indeed overall turnout still seems to be at best stable and if anything modestly trending downward.

To try to limit their sample to the 50ish% who actually vote, pollsters ask a whole bunch of screening questions, such as how carefully the voter is paying attention, do they know where their poling place is, did they vote in the last election, how enthusiastic they are about their candidate, etc...  Depending on the firm doing the poll there is a screen of anywhere from 7 to 13 questions.  

Right now the hard core vote, which favours the Dems, is far more tuned in, and hence the sample of "likely" voters is skewed towards the Democrats - Most surveys from now till roughly the conventions will thus have a systemic Democrat bias of somewhere  around +/- 4-5 points.

Somewhere around the Conventions, the GOP base starts "tuning in" to the race, so the number of "likely" voters will increase to the point that the surveys will then skew towards the GOP - indeed most surveys from the conventions till say the end of Septemeber/early October or so will have a pro GOP bias of about 3-4 points or so.

Finally, in late October/Early November the "intermittent" voters start to actually tune in, and the opinion surveys actually start to mean something.

The cycle I have discribed above also explains why the cnn/gallup/usa today poll bounced around like a yo-yo in 2000 (I think there was a 4 day stretch where Bush went from down 13 to up 11) - The gallup is designed to measure things JUST before the election, so any big campaign event which tends to "excite" a particular candidates voters will show a huge and unrealistic spike if the survey is still months or weeks away from the actual vote date, as voters of one party or the other are 'excited" enough to be deemed likely voters..

For example, in 2000 when Bush "won" the first debate he got something like a 10 point bump in Gallup, which was clearly at odds with reality..

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Pennsylvania is one of those states that is always winnable for either side...

[12th Doctor]

Something I would like to mention about a number of these polls is that most polls will go off of "Likely voters".  May I remind you that those voters who have registered since 9/11 as show in this chart are not being counted by many polls because they haven't voted yet.  The polls will shift soon when ALL states finish their primaries and new voters are counted.  I think that this shift will be desidedly GOP.

[Gustaf]

I'd say Iowa, which looks more solidly Kerry and Missouri that looks more solidly Bush. Also, Kerry is generally doing better than I'd expect.

[zachman]

Although the Republicans have increased registration, keep in mind that unaffiliated voters should turn Democratic by a margin varying from 3:2 for Kerry to 3:1, my estimate for NH. Pennsylvania should be at a little less than 3:2, but it should still be enough for Kerry.

[Beet]

Although the Republicans have increased registration, keep in mind that unaffiliated voters should turn Democratic by a margin varying from 3:2 for Kerry to 3:1, my estimate for NH. Pennsylvania should be at a little less than 3:2, but it should still be enough for Kerry.

Also, a lot of these new Republican registers may have been the type to be bought over by the line "You voted Republican. Why don't you register Republican?" In other words conservative "Reagan" or Oklahoma-type Democrats that voted for Reagan, voted Republican for Congress starting in '94, and only after 9/11 bothered to officially abandon the Democrats. In that case, changes in voter registration shouldn't have THAT huge of an impact on electoral results... although conservatives as a whole will be a majority in government, they already are.

[12th Doctor]

Although the Republicans have increased registration, keep in mind that unaffiliated voters should turn Democratic by a margin varying from 3:2 for Kerry to 3:1, my estimate for NH. Pennsylvania should be at a little less than 3:2, but it should still be enough for Kerry.

Also, a lot of these new Republican registers may have been the type to be bought over by the line "You voted Republican. Why don't you register Republican?" In other words conservative "Reagan" or Oklahoma-type Democrats that voted for Reagan, voted Republican for Congress starting in '94, and only after 9/11 bothered to officially abandon the Democrats. In that case, changes in voter registration shouldn't have THAT huge of an impact on electoral results... although conservatives as a whole will be a majority in government, they already are.

Not so.  i read that the Republicans are picking up with young voters.

[Beet]

Although the Republicans have increased registration, keep in mind that unaffiliated voters should turn Democratic by a margin varying from 3:2 for Kerry to 3:1, my estimate for NH. Pennsylvania should be at a little less than 3:2, but it should still be enough for Kerry.

Also, a lot of these new Republican registers may have been the type to be bought over by the line "You voted Republican. Why don't you register Republican?" In other words conservative "Reagan" or Oklahoma-type Democrats that voted for Reagan, voted Republican for Congress starting in '94, and only after 9/11 bothered to officially abandon the Democrats. In that case, changes in voter registration shouldn't have THAT huge of an impact on electoral results... although conservatives as a whole will be a majority in government, they already are.

Not so.  i read that the Republicans are picking up with young voters.

Thats not good news for Republicans either because young people generally they don't vote, they're one of the most marginalized demographics in politics.

[12th Doctor]

Although the Republicans have increased registration, keep in mind that unaffiliated voters should turn Democratic by a margin varying from 3:2 for Kerry to 3:1, my estimate for NH. Pennsylvania should be at a little less than 3:2, but it should still be enough for Kerry.

Also, a lot of these new Republican registers may have been the type to be bought over by the line "You voted Republican. Why don't you register Republican?" In other words conservative "Reagan" or Oklahoma-type Democrats that voted for Reagan, voted Republican for Congress starting in '94, and only after 9/11 bothered to officially abandon the Democrats. In that case, changes in voter registration shouldn't have THAT huge of an impact on electoral results... although conservatives as a whole will be a majority in government, they already are.

Not so.  i read that the Republicans are picking up with young voters.

Thats not good news for Republicans either because young people generally they don't vote, they're one of the most marginalized demographics in politics.

But New Deal voters are dying off in huge numbers.  They are the strongest Dem bloc.

[zachman]

Young people are going to come against Bush here in NH, but I do agree that more young people around the country are conservative moderates. A significant portion of these feel that they should vote for Bush.

[opebo]

PA is definitely in play, as are NM, IA, MN, WS, and OR (60EV).  The only Republican states I see is similarly in play are NH, FL, and OH (51EV).

[Beet]

I feel young people, especially those in high school and college now, may be more conservative because conservatism has been much louder during the entire brief lifespan of their coming into adolescent awareness of the world. I have certainly noticed this, around 1997 when I started getting into politics it was already considered "cool" to be a Republican and bash liberals. Most of my friends were that way. And since 2000 of course the trend has only accelerated. Conservatism was seen as being rebellious, like liberalism of the 60s, but on a slightly lesser scale. Hopefully this will eventually end as conservatism consolidates control of the establishment.

[zachman]

PA is definitely in play, as are NM, IA, MN, WS, and OR (60EV).  The only Republican states I see is similarly in play are NH, FL, and OH (51EV).

You see a tight field. I agree with your Democratic picks, but in addiittion to NH, FL, and OH I would add NV and WV. The next tier is VA, CO, AR, and LA, but those aren't first tier possibilities.

[opebo]

PA is definitely in play, as are NM, IA, MN, WS, and OR (60EV).  The only Republican states I see is similarly in play are NH, FL, and OH (51EV).

You see a tight field. I agree with your Democratic picks, but in addiittion to NH, FL, and OH I would add NV and WV.

Well, good points, I had actually thought about NV but see it as solid, and unfortunatly had completely forgotten WV.  I'd go along with adding that one for a total of 56 EV in play GOP states.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

PA is definitely in play, as are NM, IA, MN, WS, and OR (60EV).  The only Republican states I see is similarly in play are NH, FL, and OH (51EV).

You see a tight field. I agree with your Democratic picks, but in addiittion to NH, FL, and OH I would add NV and WV. The next tier is VA, CO, AR, and LA, but those aren't first tier possibilities.

I would also put AZ at least in the 2nd tier if not the first.

[opebo]

PA is definitely in play, as are NM, IA, MN, WS, and OR (60EV).  The only Republican states I see is similarly in play are NH, FL, and OH (51EV).

You see a tight field. I agree with your Democratic picks, but in addiittion to NH, FL, and OH I would add NV and WV. The next tier is VA, CO, AR, and LA, but those aren't first tier possibilities.

I would also put AZ at least in the 2nd tier if not the first.

Kerry doesn't have much chance in any of those 'second tier states.