Realistic West Wing Presidential Elections 2002 and 2006

[Antonio the Sixth]

I was recently looking at Presidential maps from the 2002 and 2006 Presidential Elections on the West Wing, and I was thinking to myself, Jed Bartlet winning North Dakota? That can't be right. Or Matt Santos winning South Carolina? I'll post both election maps, and I'd like for you to post 'realistic' outcomes for the 2002 and 2006 West Wing Presidential Elections. Thanks Rockefeller Republican.

2002 Presidential Election:

Jed Bartlet/John Hoynes (D) 423 EV
Robert Ritchie/Jeff Heston (R) 115 EV

*Note: EV totals are the ones from the West Wing

2006 Presidential Election:

Matt Santos/Leo McGarry (D) 272 EV
Arnold Vinick/Ray Sullivian (R) 266 EV

Fantastic idea !
I watched the first two seasons of West Wing and I just ADORE it !

So, here is my map for 2002 :

Bartlet/Hoynes : 423
Ritchie/Heston : 115

And 2006 :

Santos/McGarry : 272
Vinick/Sullivan : 266

[Antonio the Sixth]

I update my predictions with corrected results ( Florida, California ), popular vote and adding a map for the 1998 election :

1998

Bartlet : 48%, 303 E.V.
[unknown republican] : 39%, 235 E.V.

2002

Bartlet : 54%, 423 E.V.
Ritchie : 43%, 115 E.V.

2006

Santos : 49%, 272 E.V.
Vinick : 49%, 266 E.V.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Santos-Vinick election is a fun one to think about, actually.  All the scenarios were fine until the shows depicting the election itself.  The election night episodes seem to have even forgotten about the 2002 results, as they suggested Bartlet lost the Dakotas when the 2002 election episodes said Bartlet won them.  The election night episodes featured the West Wing script writers completely losing their wits.  There is no way that Santos would have won South Carolina, and he would probably have lost Missouri badly.  I also don't think Santos would win Texas; I don't think a Democratic mayor of Houston takes the whole state, especially given how Vinck is depicted as having the support of oil companies.

I think, in the Santos-Vinick race, Santos has to win the following states: Iowa, because Vinick hit almost bottom in the Iowa primaries because he wouldn't take the ethonol pledge while Santos swollowed it; Pennsylvania, because Santos came to Goveror Eric Baker's defense at the Democratic convention, and he wins enough of Bakers confidence for them to pick Baker as their new VP nominee at the end of the show, and Michigan.  I think Santos wins in Virginia and North Carolina might be plausible, given Santos' military background and perhaps support from the NC research triangle.  Florida would have been a real tossup.  Still, I think a Republican as moderate as Vinick with his market committments and foreign policy background still holds on to these states by small margins.

On the other hand, I think Vinick does pick up a few wins in New England (1 EV from Maine and New Hampshire sound reasonable), and, as mentioned, I think he wins Missouri comfortably and Texas by single digits.  However, I think the show, until the election night episodes, set Vinck up to lose California because of the San Andreo event, which would have put a huge dent in the support in southern California Vinick would have absolutely needed to win the state. 

The way the election night shows were written was a huge disappointment coming at the end of two seasons of campaign shows which were really outstanding.

Good analysis. however, don't forget that the telefilm has his own alternative political history, and it could be different than ours. In the West Wing's world, Texas could be less republican and conservative than in real life ( don't forget that it was a democratic stronghold until 1980 ) and California less democrat and liberal ( republican until 1992 ). So, everything is possible, and I think that's even better so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I wonder how the 2002 election map would look like if Seth Gillette decided to pull a Nader and run against Bartlet.

How abou we add another layer of suspense on and say that Mark Buckland, the Democratic governor of Indiana, joins the Gillette ticket as the VP nominee?

Gillette in this scenario wins the Dakotas and,  because of the split in the Democratic vote in the region, costs Bartlet Iowa, Missouri and  Arkansas and pushes Minnesota and Wisconsin to the edge, though there is so little support of Ritchie in these states, Bartlet hangs on.  The result.

Bartlet/Hoynes     306
Ritchie/Heston      226
Gillette/Buckland      6

Do you really think that Gillette could win the Dakotas when, Anderson or Perot won no states though getting more than 10% of the votes ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

[Do you really think that Gillette could win the Dakotas when La Follette, Anderson or Perot won no states though getting more than 10% of the votes ?

Well, the show had Bartlet winning the Dakotas in 2002 (which I think is pretty outlandish and I don't have that result in my maps).
But entertaining the scenario, if North Dakotans had elected Gillette to the Senate, they might vote for him as president (I think
if Byron Dorgan or Kent Conrad made a run for the presidency, Dakotans would get fairly excited about it.)  And the total national
vote doesn't necessarily reflect a candidate's electoral vote total. especially with small states; Gillette might only play in the Dakotas
and a little bit in other midwester states and still pick off a few electoral votes there.  But, I could easily be wrong about all that.  I
don't think even a big Bartlet solo landslide in 2002 gets him the Dakotas, contrary to what's in the show.  In the show, Bartlet
only got about 55% of the popular vote, and Johnson had to get practically 60% in '64 to bag the Dakotas.

With 8 more points ( 57/42 ) Obama could have won Dakotas : with a more favorable EV structure, that would not be impossible for Bartlet.