Democrats now "favored" in Electoral College

[zorkpolitics]

For years, the Electoral college was presumed to favor Republicans (example Bush's 2000 win in the EC but loss in the popular vote).  But that may have changed.

Not surprisingly, an in depth analysis of partisanship changes from 1960 to 2004 shows the study decline in the number of close or battleground states.  Looking forward to 2008 only 13 states are likely to be significant battleground states.  One new battleground state is predicted for 2008, VA, while AR, AZ, ME, OR, TN, WA, and WV drop off the list.  Somewhat surprisingly, Kerry did better in battleground states in 2004 than he did in the rest of the country. 
If that Democratic result holds, it would predict a Democratic victory in the Electoral College in a 50:50 election by 284-254.  While a 4% Democratic win would yield a 321-217 Electoral votes, a 4% Republican margin of victory woud yield only a 300-238 win.  Thus suggesting the Democrats now have an advantage in the battlegound states.
See:
http://www.fairvote.org/media/perp/presidentialinequality.pdf

[Erc]

One election does not an advantage make:

Given a uniform national swing, these would be the electoral college results given a tie in the PV:

2004:  R 242 D 296  (D +54)
2000:  R 301 D 237  (R +67)
1996:  R 259 D 279  (D +20)
1992:  R 275 D 263  (R +12)
1988:  R 286 D 252  (R +34)
1984:  R 306 D 232  (R +74)
1980:  R 255 D 283  (D +28)
1976:  R 284 D 254  (R +30)
1972:  R 265 D 273  (D +8)
1968:  R 320 D 218  (R +102)
1964:  R 252 D 286  (R +34)
1960:  R 223 D 314  (D +91)
1956:  R 259 D 272  (D +13)
1952:  R 285 D 246  (R +39)
1948:  R 299 D 232  (R +67)
1944:  R 320 D 211  (R +109)
1940:  R 318 D 213  (R +105)
1936:  R 305 D 226  (R +79)
1932:  R 272 D 259  (R +13)
1928:  R 227 D 304  (D +77)
[1924 Omitted due to Lafollette]
1920:  R 283 D 248  (R +35)
1916:  R 254 D 277  (D +23)
[1912 Omitted due to Roosevelt/Taft]
1908:  R 257 D 226  (R +31)
1904:  R 236 D 240  (D +4)
1900:  R 234 D 213  (R +21)
1896:  R 232 D 215  (R +17)

Republicans have historically had a very slight (but statistically insignificant) advantage in the electoral college.  The fact that the Democrats had the advantage in 2004 is, as of yet, no clear sign of any "trend"--and they've had larger (1960) in the past.

[Gabu]

I would say that the largest reason why the electoral college favored Kerry in 2004 was simply because George W. Bush's solid states gave him a higher percentage than John Kerry's solid states.  I don't see how this indicates any large trend.

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, the turnout increases heavily favored Dems in midwestern and western battlegrounds , heavily favored Reps in already solid Rep Southern states. That's what makes this trend.

[RJ]

The link won't open for me:(

Can someone explain to me how Bush would have won the election in 2004 more easily than in 2000 given the states he won in either election? His states were/are worth more than last census. Also, the Northeast and Midwest are losing population while the South and Southwest are gaining.

[Frodo]

For years, the Electoral college was presumed to favor Republicans (example Bush's 2000 win in the EC but loss in the popular vote).  But that may have changed.

Not surprisingly, an in depth analysis of partisanship changes from 1960 to 2004 shows the study decline in the number of close or battleground states.  Looking forward to 2008 only 13 states are likely to be significant battleground states.  One new battleground state is predicted for 2008, VA, while AR, AZ, ME, OR, TN, WA, and WV drop off the list.  Somewhat surprisingly, Kerry did better in battleground states in 2004 than he did in the rest of the country. 

So Oregon is now considered a Democratic state? 

What happened over the course of this decade to turn the state from the swing state I always assumed it was to being a lean-Democratic state?  Not that I am complaining if it is true, but I still wonder.... 

[Alcon]

So Oregon is now considered a Democratic state? 

What happened over the course of this decade to turn the state from the swing state I always assumed it was to being a lean-Democratic state? 

Oregon voted for Kerry by four points in a year in a year when Bush won by 2.  It's not solid, certainly, but it's definitely Dem-leaning.

[Frodo]

So Oregon is now considered a Democratic state? 

What happened over the course of this decade to turn the state from the swing state I always assumed it was to being a lean-Democratic state? 

Oregon voted for Kerry by four points in a year in a year when Bush won by 2.  It's not solid, certainly, but it's definitely Dem-leaning.

That isn't enough to explain it -suppose the GOP nominates John McCain or someone with as much crossover appeal and the Dems join the Hillary Clinton bandwagon.  Many have predicted that Oregon is likely to go Republican in that scenario. 

[Alcon]

So Oregon is now considered a Democratic state? 

What happened over the course of this decade to turn the state from the swing state I always assumed it was to being a lean-Democratic state? 

Oregon voted for Kerry by four points in a year in a year when Bush won by 2.  It's not solid, certainly, but it's definitely Dem-leaning.

That isn't enough to explain it -suppose the GOP nominates John McCain or someone with as much crossover appeal and the Dems join the Hillary Clinton bandwagon.  Many have predicted that Oregon is likely to go Republican in that scenario. 

Well, yes, but this is assuming a fairly even electoral college.  The EC would be irrelevant in McCain v. Clinton.

[Frodo]

Alcon,

I guess I should have made this clearer: I am not so much disputing the fact that it has gone Democratic in increasing margins since the beginning of this decade.  I think the main thrust of my inquiry was about whether the internal dynamics (demographics, etc.) within Oregon might have changed since the beginning of the decade, and contributed to turning it more Democratic.  That's what really interests me.  Since you live right next-door to the state, I was hoping you would know.   So perhaps it did, perhaps it did not -you tell me since you are better-placed in a position to know.

In addition, will any of this contribute to Democrats taking control of the state legislature, which is currently split?

[Alcon]

Alcon,

I guess I should have made this clearer: I am not so much disputing the fact that it has gone Democratic in increasing margins since the beginning of this decade.  I think the main thrust of my inquiry was about whether the internal dynamics (demographics, etc.) within Oregon might have changed since the beginning of the decade, and contributed to turning it more Democratic.  That's what really interests me.  Since you live right next-door to the state, I was hoping you would know.   So perhaps it did, perhaps it did not -you tell me since you are better-placed in a position to know.

In addition, will any of this contribute to Democrats taking control of the state legislature, which is currently split?

Well...the demographics of the state haven't really changed too much.  The main difference is there are some blue-collar counties that  have trended Dem to GOP while the suburbs trended GOP to Dem, especially Washington County, where the Republicans still hold a registration advantage.

I don't know much about the legislature in Oregon, honestly.  That sort of news rarely makes it up here, unfortunately.