The Battleground States

Candidates Narrow Focus to 18 States
Battle Has Begun In Most-Contested Areas of Nation
By Dan Balz and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers

The election-night mapmakers created an indelible image of political America in 2000: red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats, and a handful of states, crowned by disputed Florida, that remained competitive until the very end. Campaign 2004 begins where 2000 left off. …

Four years ago, red and blue states were so finely balanced that Bush was declared the winner with 271 electoral votes, one more than required. Five of the 50 states, led by Florida’s dead-heat 537-vote outcome, were decided by less than a single percentage point.

In 18 states, the winner’s margin was 6 percentage points or less, and at the start of the 2004 general election, at least 17 are seen as competitive battlegrounds, as the campaigns’ initial advertising strategists suggest. …

Judging from interviews with strategists on both sides and with outside analysts, 10 of the closest states from four years ago are seen as the most competitive as the campaign begins. Bush and Gore split them five-five. The Bush states that may be most vulnerable to Democratic takeover are Florida, Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire and Nevada, while the five Gore states eyed by the GOP are Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Mexico.

The results of 2000 underscore the electoral parity between the parties in both the competitive and noncompetitive states. In the 32 states and the District that were decided by more than 6 percentage points, Republicans won 21 while Democrats captured 12. But when measured in electoral votes, the two parties’ bases are more even: The GOP states account for 179 electoral votes while the Democratic states, including California and New York, total 168.

The same equilibrium holds for the 18 closest states: The nine Republican states now account for 99 electoral votes, and the nine Democratic states add up to 92. …

Four years ago, the loss of one more state of any size would have cost Bush the election. That is no longer the case because of reapportionment after the 2000 Census. If Bush were to win all the states he won and Kerry won all of Gore’s states, the electoral count would be 278 to 260, an advantage of 18 electoral votes for Bush rather than four. …

with the exception of Florida, where a recent poll showed Kerry ahead of Bush, the South looks more forbidding to the Democrats in 2004 than it was in any of the past three elections, when southerners Clinton or Gore or both were on the ticket.

This is a more thorough, thoughtful analysis than the one I quoted a few days ago (see link below). In particular, note that if Bush wins exactly what he won (or was given) in 2000, he gets MORE electoral votes than 4 years ago, thanks to the census. mjh

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: How Kerry Wins

Gloves Come Off

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Gloves come off early in race for president By Mark Silva, The Orlando Sentinel

It’s possible that ”the public is going to get burned out over this,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Center for Public Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. Yet, she said, the issues that Bush and Kerry are battling about — terrorism, taxes, jobs and health care — are critical enough to keep voters engaged.

”We’re seeing a new model of campaigning,” Jamieson said. ”The assumption has always been that you don’t engage seriously at the general-election level until at least summer. You are now down to the specific case against each side at a very early time.”

It’s going to be a long, hard campaign. Ask yourself who benefits from voter burnout? mjh

Plain-spoken Lies

BUSH GUTS THE FACTS AGAIN – WILL THE MEDIA LET HIM? by Matt Miller

So what was Bush’s attack about? There are two ways to look at it: as a measure of how dumb the White House thinks we are and as a measure of how anxious the White House is a full eight months before November. …

This is not about facts. It is about planting seeds of mistrust [of Kerry]. Which brings us to Bush’s flip-flop strategy. …

Is this rubbish supposed to be the way to lead a nation in a time of ”war”? This from the man who always boasts that he’s ”plainspoken”? …

Speak Freely

Quarantining dissent / How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up ”free speech zones” or ”protest zones,” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

Bush talks about preserving freedom while he moves to reduce ours. mjh

We protest!

Though you didn’t see it on the news and read almost nothing about it in print, there were protesters in Roswell confronting George Bush. We were there.

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: America was a Free-Speach Zone!

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: First and Fifth Amendments Survive