Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Bruce Bartlett :: Townhall.com Columnist
Presidential Predicting
by Bruce Bartlett
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Although we are two years away from the first ballot being cast in the 2008 presidential election and don't even know who the candidates will be, we already know a great deal about how the race will turn out. Historical trends tell us that the Republican candidate will be very tough to beat regardless of who he is.

To see why this is the case, let's first look at which states voted for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, and those that went for both Al Gore and John Kerry. This will give us a good guide to each party's base.

Starting with Bush, we see that he carried all of these states twice: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. They have 274 electoral votes, with 270 needed to win.

Gore and Kerry carried all of these states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. These have 248 electoral votes.

In 2000, Iowa and New Mexico went for Gore and switched to Bush in 2004. New Hampshire went for Bush in 2000, but went for Kerry in 2004. These three states are the only ones that changed party, and the vote shift was very small. In 2000, Gore won Iowa with 48.54 percent of the vote to 48.22 percent for Bush; in 2004, Bush won the state with 49.9 percent to Kerry's 49.23 percent.

A similar story is told in New Hampshire and New Mexico. Bush carried the Granite State with 48.07 percent of the vote to 46.8 percent for Gore in 2000; in 2004, Kerry got 50.24 percent to 48.87 percent for Bush. New Mexico gave Gore 47.91 percent of the vote in 2000 to Bush's 47.85 percent. In 2004, Bush took the Land of Enchantment with 49.84 percent to 49.05 percent for Kerry.

Looking at potential swing states, we see that Bush won the following states in 2000 with less than 50 percent of the vote: Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio. Gore won these states with less than 50 percent: Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin. But in 2004, there were only three states that were won with less than 50 percent of the vote: Iowa and New Mexico went for Bush, and Wisconsin went for Kerry.

Interestingly, one of the major factors helping Bush in 2004 over 2000 wasn't a change in voting, but a shift in population. The 2000 census awarded seven additional electoral votes to the states he carried twice, with the same number being subtracted from those that went for Gore and Kerry. Among Bush's states, Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas each picked up two additional electoral votes. Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina gained one apiece. Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio and Oklahoma each lost a vote.

Looking at the Democrats, only California and the District of Columbia gained an electoral vote between 2000 and 2004. New York and Pennsylvania lost two votes each. Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin lost one apiece.

What this means is that if the population distribution in 2000 had been reflected in the Electoral College that year, Bush would have won 278 electoral votes instead of the 271 he was officially awarded, and Gore would have had 259 votes instead of the 266 he got. If the final electoral vote had been 278 to 259 instead of the actual 271 to 266, much of the rancor over the results might have been avoided.

The 2010 census is likely to accelerate the Republican advantage. According to preliminary estimates by Polidata.org, 13 electoral votes will probably shift before the 2012 election. States that Bush carried twice will gain another seven net electoral votes, and those carried by Gore and Kerry will lose six net seats.

States expected to gain electoral votes include Arizona (+2), Florida (+2), Georgia (+1), Nevada (+1), Oregon (+1), Texas (+4), Utah (+1) and Washington (+1). Losing states are Illinois (-1), Iowa (-1), Louisiana (-1), Massachusetts (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Missouri (-1), New Jersey (-1), New York (-2), Ohio (-2) and Pennsylvania (-1). All the gaining states went for Bush twice except for Oregon and Washington. All of the losing states went for Gore and Kerry except Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri and Ohio.

Internet betting sites, such as Intrade.com, see the Democrats having about a 55 percent chance of winning in 2008. However, for him or her to win, they will have to get a good-sized state that went for Bush twice to switch. That may be hard.

Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bruce Bartlett is a former senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas. Bartlett is a prolific author, having published over 900 articles in national publications, and prominent magazines and published four books, including Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action.

Be the first to read Bruce Bartlett's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(9 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Feb 27, 2007 - 12:28 AM EST
Yeah, well...
In 2000 and 2004, Bush was still perceived as having some conservative chops, and his opponents were perceived as radically left lunatics, both of whom ran incredibly inept campaigns.

Next time may be a vastly different story. The conservative base is sick to death of RINOism, especially as personified by Bush and his cronies. If the candidate is another RINO, he'll be in serious trouble (see my current blog essay "Principle versus Expediency" by clicking on my name).

Further, if the Dems put up a candidate who can be perceived as more mainstream than Gore or Kerry, and that candidate runs a good campaign... well, my money would go with the odds-makers.

The election is the Republicans' to lose, but they have a very strong habit recently of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:40 AM EST
Look At The Demographics
After Jorge Bush and the Republicrats in Congress get done legalizing 20+ million criminal invaders, the Republicans can kiss the presidency, and the sovereignty of the country goodbye. They, and their many offspring are going to vote solid Democratic for the foreseeable future. Only the Republican Party is too stupid to see this coming. And as Samuel Francis often said, whenever something is bi-partisan it is both evil and stupid. There is no Republican mainstream presidential candidate running that is even remotely conservative. Consequently, 2008 is going to once again feature principled conservatives staying home in droves. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination is going to win the presidency. What we will see is a national version of what used to happen in the pre-Nixon/Reagan South. Whoever wins the Democratic primary election is going to win the general election. If the Republicans are lucky, they might win a few seats in the North American Parliament that their puppeteers in Manhattan are setting up.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Feb 27, 2007 - 7:07 AM EST
First we assume....
that nothing will change between now and then.

Your analysis might have been made on September 10, 2001 when people felt that the most important issue before us was whether a congressman had killed an intern and dumped her body in a park.

The next day everything changed.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Feb 27, 2007 - 7:14 AM EST
Dubya baggage
Agree generally with BrianR... also, the neoCON factor has thoroughly soured a substantial majority... fully 2/3 now think the war was a mistake, and many rightly sniff the stench of the neoCON fraud and ulterior agenda which spawned it and screwed up its execution.

I voted twice for Dubya, holding my nose the second time. He has been an egregious, profligate spender and grown the govt. with boondoggle programs: Rx care for seniors, No Bureaucrat Left Behind. His veto pen has never had any ink in it. We might as well have elected Gore or the public traitor Windsurfer in this regard-- the drunken sailor spending spree is the same. After promising to eschew nation building, Dubya has fecklessly attempted precisely that! He chose, instigated, and screwed up this neoCON war, and has made that he11hole region even worse at immense cost to America... even the Bushies themslves admit no light at the end of the tunnel.

But worst of all BY FAR, he has TRAITOROUSLY mortgaged and sold out America's socio-economic and cultural future by willfully aiding and abetting the ILLEGAL alien invasion! He has secretly committed to send already threatened S.S. funds down to Mexico-- part of his goal for the North American Union, the "elitist" desire to morph us into MexAmeriCanada. He has allowed (and probably blessed) the shameful kangaroo court persecution of border guards trying to stop a drug runner... but then, with Martinez leading the RNC (Rino Network for reConquista) and Gonzalez heading up Justice, can there be any doubt what message the Bushies are sending to Mexico and everybody else?! Mi casa es su casa! Viva la Reconquista!

I thought that Jimmuh Carter had established the nadir for worst modern President, but Dubya has plunged yet lower into the depths of the loser vortex due to incompetence, ignorance, deceit, willful stupidity, and dereliction of oath of office to keep America safe from foreign invaders. The Bushies have the unbridled gall to speak of fighting terrorists over there so they won't come back here, even as they can readily skip across our border posing as other, latino ILLEGAL aliens. Comprendo espanol, amigos?!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Feb 27, 2007 - 8:05 AM EST
Knock off the kool-aid.
Bartlett's "analysis" is more like kool-aid for the true-believers.

Demographic shifts benefit the GOP, if historical factors such as population growth in the south and west, at expense of midwest and northeast, prevail.

However, due to Iraq, loss of factory jobs, and the corruption in GOP in Ohio, that state is probably going democrat in '08. It is a major state.

Unless Iraq improves dramatically, the GOP is going to be saddled with an unpopular war. That, along with the perception of many that the GOP places "free trade" above "fair trade", will be another hurdle for the GOP in '08.

Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan predicts a recession by the 2008 election. He is not a democrat shill. He originally was appointed by Reagan, I believe. If he is right, that is not a good sign for the GOP holding the whitehouse.

I am not nearly as confident on GOP prospects for the whitehouse in '08 as Bartlett.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Feb 27, 2007 - 8:48 AM EST
My crystal ball says
By the time of the 08 elections our current discussions will have no relevance to the actual issues that will play in the Election...I also think by that time there is a 50/50 chance for one maybe both of the major party's to have self destructed, slightly higher fot the D-crats than the R-crats.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Feb 27, 2007 - 11:17 AM EST
Interesting Analysis
But with one caveat. Since a lot of the migration is from the Snow Belt/Rust Belt to the Sun Belt, often times the demographics of the Sun belt state change. For example, Arizona and Nevada used to be decidedly red. While they still lean Republican, the gap is narrower.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Feb 27, 2007 - 4:03 PM EST
2008
Truthserum, you are full of it! I don't know how you can compare President Bush with the two farces we had as Democratic presidents; namely Clinton and Carter. Give it a break....if they hadn't tore up the military and try to introduce the isolationism policies, we wouldn't have these problems with the terrorists we have now. Our enemies saw that the two Cs had no back bone when it came to standing up for our nation and security. So they walked all over us.
Of yes, let's take the fact that President clinton's advisors to the economy told him before the 2000 elections that recession was conig early in the next year. Whay did he do, kept quiet so President Bush would get the blame.
Yeah such a great president! What happened to those great Clinton accomplishments that were lies yet he's remembered for getting them done, right? He didn't balance the budget, He did not put 100,000 policemen on the streets and he did not work the economic programs that brought thr country back after the senior Bush presidency. He was like the car salesman when the big wig comes in to buy a fleet of vehicles, he just happened to be there when things got better.
In 2008, the Democrats are going to split and fight over Obama and Hitllery. John McCain will walk into the presidency. Because the unhappy Democrats will vote Republican.
Sound far fetched..........its very possible
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Feb 28, 2007 - 11:18 PM EST
Vote American
When both parties seem eager to sell us down the Rio Grande, I have never seen a more opportune time for a third party Presidential candidate. Most Americans do not wish to give up on our Constitution, our language, our culture or our country. We do not want W's shotgun marriage of Mexiamericanada. We like our republic and we'd like to keep it. If the GOP follows W down the NAU path, they will go the way of the Whig Party. Another party will emerge. I only hope it's not too late. Importing voters for your opponents makes no sense.
Maybe the GOP will wake up, nominate a real conservative like Duncan Hunter. Probably not, Mel Martinez is RNC Chairman to prevent that. If it comes down to Rudy vs. Hillary, I predict lower turnout than the 60% from the last election. Why bother if both candidates are New York liberals? The right third party candidate could draw out many who have quit voting and draw votes from both parties. The leadership in both parties underestimate the discontent amongst the citzenry.
An aside: Virgina used to be considered a very red state. After electing 2 Democrat governors in a row and ousting George Allen in 2006, it has to be considered a purple state at best. If John Warner does not retire of his own accord, the voters will do it for him, giving the Democrats another Senate seat in 2008.
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.