How to find the real strength of a candidate in a state?

[Shira]

From the standpoint of election specialists, sociologists and statisticians, the 2000 elections were highly valuable because they were ‘natural’ and perfectly reflected the diversity and the demography of America. The corrections that had to be taken, were minor: adding the Buchanan votes to Bush, and adding the Nader votes to Gore.

We can assert, therefore, that the ‘natural’ power of the Reps in NY is 36% and in TX – 59.5% etc.

Things become more complicated in elections which are ‘unnatural’.

There are two reasons why elections become ‘unnatural’:

1 – A nationwide margin of one candidate over the other
2 – The participation of a third party (a serious one)

Despite these two statistical ‘noises’, you can simulate and estimate what would have been the outcomes in a specific state, had the elections been ‘natural’.

The two ‘noises’ that I mentioned, existed in the 1996 and 1992 elections.  

In 1996, the nationwide margin of Clinton over Doll was close to 9%, and Ross Perot did participate. It is agreed among the pundits, that without Perot in the race, the votes for him would have been evenly divided between Clinton and Doll.  So, if you want to ‘clear the noises’, do the following: add 4.5% to Doll (4.5 is half of the global nationwide Clinton’s victory margin). In addition, add to Doll half of the Perot’s percentage in the specific state.

In TX, for example, Perot got 6.8% and the Reps – 48.8%. The adjusted (or the ‘natural’ if you will) electoral power of the Reps in TX in 1996 would therefore be:
48.8 + 9.0/2 + 6.8/2 = 56.7%.

In 1992 the methodology should be the same, but with different numbers certainly.
The Clinton’s nationwide victory margin was 5.6%. In TX Perot got 22% and Bush Sr. got 40.6%, so the Reps’ adjusted electoral power in 1992 in TX would be:
40.6 + 5.6/2 + 22/2 = 54.4%.

Making the adjustments on the 1988 elections is simpler. All you have to do is to subtract 3.8% from the Bush’s percentage in the state.  3.8% is half of the nationwide margin of victory of Bush over Dukakis. Bush in TX got 56% and after adjustment it becomes 56 – 3.8 = 52.2%.

If you apply the same methodology to FL, you get the following formal vs. adjusted figures for the Reps’ electoral power in FL.

2000 - 48.8%, Adjusted: 49.1%
1996 - 42.3%, Adjusted: 52.3%
1992 - 40.9%, Adjusted: 53.6%
1988 - 60.9%, Adjusted: 57.1%

The same figures for TX are:

2000 - 59.5%, Adjusted: 59.5%
1996 - 48.8%, Adjusted: 56.7%
1992 - 40.6%, Adjusted: 54.4%
1988 - 56.0%, Adjusted: 52.2%

What we clearly see here is that in TX, the Reps are gradually becoming stronger and stronger, while in FL it is exactly the opposite. What common to these two states is, that the rate of the population growth there is higher than the US’s population rate of growth?.
If I were a republican strategist, I would become worried about FL.

[Lunar]

Texas is bad to use because it was the candidate's hope state.  Also bad for 1988 and 92 and 96.  I believe it was Perot's homestate as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

2000 was not perfect. No election is perfect.

[gorkay]

Yeah, I agree that the Republicans could have trouble in Florida this year. And if they let it get away this time, it could cost them the election, because their chances of picking up any of the states Gore won in 2000 aren't very good.

[Bono]

Texas is bad to use because it was the candidate's hope state.  Also bad for 1988 and 92 and 96.  I believe it was Perot's homestate as well.

Perot's homestate was texas...

[ATFFL]

Yeah, I agree that the Republicans could have trouble in Florida this year. And if they let it get away this time, it could cost them the election, because their chances of picking up any of the states Gore won in 2000 aren't very good.

Well, Bush ended up with 2, but FLorida was still key.

Texas is bad to use because it was the candidate's hope state.  Also bad for 1988 and 92 and 96.  I believe it was Perot's homestate as well.

Perot's homestate was texas...

Yes, Perot hailed from Texas.

[Gabu]

If you apply the same methodology to FL, you get the following formal vs. adjusted figures for the Reps’ electoral power in FL.

2000 - 48.8%, Adjusted: 49.1%
1996 - 42.3%, Adjusted: 52.3%
1992 - 40.9%, Adjusted: 53.6%
1988 - 60.9%, Adjusted: 57.1%

To follow up on this, for 2004 we get the following:

Nationwide margin: Bush +2.46

So...

FL: 52.10% (Raw), 50.96% (Adjusted: -1.23% for a 50-50 race, +0.09% for Peroutka's voters)

As usual, the moment you notice a trend, it's already gone.