Fasten your seatbelts! Or, perhaps more accurately, lock your doors, bolt your
windows, and prepare yourself for shock, the introductory phrase for the old television
series, Shock Theatre. It is about to get ugly. Al Gore will come out swinging, with
perhaps the nastiest presidential campaign we have ever seen, even worse perhaps
than the polemic launched against Ronald Reagan. In the end, however, George W.
Bush will triumph, carrying 39 or forty states on the way to the White House, sweet justice perhaps for the defeat of his father and Bob Dole largely because of the candidacy of Ross Perot. The electoral vote will be lopsided, with Gore garnering only perhaps ten or eleven states and the District of Columbia while the popular vote will be somewhat closer, with Bush capturing something in the area of 50 million votes to Gore's 47 million. Unlike 1992 and 1996, however, the media will not talk about the 'landslide' victory in the electoral college as they did with Clinton's successes. The emphasis will be on the popular vote because it will be relatively close. Or at least it should be.

In the first issue of ejps, Vol I No. 1 in Spring 1997, a state by state anaylsis was
developed to estimate the probable vote for the candidates of the major parties in
the presidential election based on a projection of votes in each state growing on the
returns in each state since about the time of World War II. Utilizing that methodology, it is possible to estimate the probable vote for President in each of the
states. Pollstergeist

On that analysis, an estimation of the votes for the major party candidates can be
made for the 2000 contest based on the vote in each election at least since the most
recent alignment about 1968, although the original methodology went back even
further in drawing the estimates. A projection for each state can be made for 2000
voting:

State Bush Gore

California 5200 5100
Colorado 800 700
Connecticut 750 751
Delaware 160 150
Georgia 1200 1000
Iowa 700 650
Kentucky 800 700
Louisiana 900 850
Maine 325 325
Michigan 2100 1900
Montana 200 170
Nevada 230 210
New Hampshire 260 250
New Jersey 1500 1500
Ohio 2700 2200
Vermont 150 151
Wisconsin 1300 1200

National Total 50 m 47 m

These projections were based on recent voting as demonstrated in the following
two state cases:

Alabama

year R D O
2000 800 700
1996 772 658 91
1992 804 690 183
1988 816 550
1984 873 552
1980 654 637
1976 504 659
1972 729 219
1968 147 197 691

Michigan

Year R D O
2000 2100 1900
1996 1414 1912 319
1992 1555 1871 825
1988 1965 1676
1984 2252 1530
1980 1915 1662
1976 1894 1697
1972 1962 1459
1968 1371 1593 332

While the numbers indicate that the race may well be very close in a number of key
states, and also close in some smaller ones, it is likely that the electoral vote
breakdown of the states will look something like this for the 2000 elections.

Bush Gore

Arkansas Conn
Arizona DC
Alabama Hawaii
Alaska Maryland
California Mass
Colorado Minnesota
Delaware New Hampshire
Florida New York
Georgia Oregon
Idaho Rhode Island
Illinois Washington
Indiana West Virginia
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Where it may be close

Gore could end up with as few as five states in addition to Washington, DC,
(the only places he should be reasonably assured of winning are DC, West Virginia,
Maryland, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Massachusetts), or Bush might find his total widdled down a bit by losing California, Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, or New Hampshire, and perhaps even Tennessee on the basis that Al Gore hails from that state. But even that would leave him with a vast majority of electoral votes.

Buchanan But No Perot

One major argument of the Pollstergeist article was that the primary reason that
Clinton was able to win the elections in 1992 and 1996 was the Perot vote. It
operated to siphon off votes from the Republican candidates in each election.
Nothing of that magnitude will be operative in 2000. There are, of course, the
candidacies of Buchanan and Nader, but they will not have the same impact
that Perot had. Perot's investment and the media attention to him produced that
result, but it is not happening this time around. It was suggested that there might
well be a diminishing marginal return on third party efforts this time which would
have rendered even another Perot run less than effectual, but neither Buchanan
nor Nader appear to be reaching even close to such levels as a diminished
return on their campaigns might expect. Indeed, given their respective politics,
it is possible that were there any such impact, it might be to the diminishment
of the Democrat presidential vote, issues such as 'free trade,' the 'environment,'
and immigration slightly eroding that vote in especially a few key states.

Gore's Antics -- Getting Down and Dirty

Republicans are still occassionally attacked for having run the Willie Horton ads
during Dukakis' campaign, but what is not remembered is the source of that ad --
it first appeared in Gore's primary campaign against Dukakis! It is in fact his
specialty. Whether the Horton piece was a valid point or not, that does not necessarily constrain Al Gore. Evans-Pritchard has noted the decidedly totalitarian
character of the Clinton-Gore team in this respect. But Gore has fallen back on
repeating the worn phrases the Democrats have run against Reagan and Bush
and Dole, and the Republican Congress. If they did not resonate with some voters
as they still do, the assertions of claims of having balanced the budget and acheived
the long-running prosperity the US experienced through 2000 would be laughable.
After all, had Clinton had his way, neither result would have been obtained.

Gore's Only Chance -- Battle Ground States

Some of the states in which the contest will be close could make the election
rather more close than the projections might lead one to conclude. After all,
whatever the reasons for the economic well-being of the country, such conditions
often play well to the advantage of the incumbent President and his party. Thus,
if Gore could garner enough support on such bases in California, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvaniaa, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Jersey, to name the most critical, it
might be possible for him to squeak out a win in the electoral college if not in the
popular voting. But even if things went his way in those states, it appears on this
analysis that a top end vote of in the neighborhood of 240 electoral votes would
be as close as he would be likely to come.

Soft Money and Chinese Army Money

As part of the 60 Minutes program on March 19, Andy Rooney was complaining
about how boring and tiring the campaign would be since it will fixate on Gore's
charges of Bush wrecking the environment and Bush's complaints about Gore's
forked tongue on campaign finance. And of course, there is the shadow of Clinton
himself over the campaign battlefield. Gore has tried to used the soft money issue
to his advantage in the campaign, even while he came close to matching Clinton
in his collection plate antics in this area. This, too, may work to his benefit, since
campaign funds laundered from China didn't hurt Clinton -- electorally or legally --
and the same source of funds from such as China and Iran this time around
seem unknown to most voters, let alone serving to hurt Gore's campaign.


The Electoral Clock

In the Fall 1997 issue of ejps, an Electoral Clock of Presidential Elections is
postulated, and based on the concept of the six party systems of American
history, the 2000 contest should be the last of that system. Given that, it also
would appear to be a 'Normal Election' in that context, or one that fundamentally
reflects the alignment of political forces which have been dominant since 1968.
Electoral
Clock

That would suggest a victory for the Republicans and George W. Bush. But the
electoral clock also suggests some indicators of what a new party system might
look like as it develops ostensibly toward the 2004 elections. The travails of the
last eight years and the potential for an impact of that on the electoral landscape
-- complete with a potential for a big year for the GOP -- might mean considerable
impetus toward a Republican-centered Seventh Party System. So, too, does the
'turn' of the clock as articulated in that article. But, 1964, the last election of the
fifth system was a big year for the Democrats who held sway during that system,
although with the Kennedy assassination, there was not a 'normal' contest, but an
'abnormal' one.

2004 should be a restructuring or realigning year, with a suggestion of the potential
for abnormal events impacting on the race, but only time and exigenices could fill
that bill. That might simply be a function of the probably reelection of George W.
Bush, with the connotation that could carry of a big year for the Republicans, setting
the pace for the Seventh Party System.

Testing the Hypothesis

A simple test of the analysis will take place on election day, 2000. We can
compare the projected estimates in each state with the actual vote tallies.
An upcoming issue of ejps will do just that. At this writing, we have only the
polls to go on, and they are at best premature, at worse, biased and inaccurate
and misleading. But they seem to be pointing toward some support for the
methodology.

The manner in which the national media handles polling data has certainly been
a bit misleading. Wide spread reporting was of Gore's sudden big lead following
the Democrat convention. However, it seems as if they pick and chose which
polls to report.

For instance, the report of Gore's 'lead' has to be balanced against that fact that
Governor Bush led in TWO OF THE THREE national tracking POLLS. (09/19/00):

Bush 41, Gore 37...Battleground 2000 (voter.com)
Bush 44, Gore 41...Rasmussen Research (portraitofamerica.com)
Bush 44, Gore 48...CNN/USA Today/Gallup (gallup.com)

But it was the lead in the one poll that the most mention.

The polls also seem to suffer from a bit of a Democrat bias, as well.
Consistently over recent years, they have overestimated the Democrat vote
by more than 5 %. And the final Newsweek Poll in 1996 showed CLINTON
AHEAD BY 23, although the election was won by CLINTON BY 8 points(and
then only with Perot siphoning off votes from Dole).

The Hotline/Scoop Poll of The Hotline and The National Journal reported the
following results on Friday, October 13, 2000:

STATE BUSH GORE POLL DATE MoE
(+ indicates lead inside the MoE, ++ a lead outside)
AL (9) ++52 36 ARG 9/11-15 +/- 4
AK (3) ++47 26 ARG 9/11-17 +/- 4
AR (6) +45 43 Mason-Dixon 9/26-28 +/- 4
AZ (8) +47 40 AZ Republic 10/5-9 +/- 5
CA (54) 37 ++50 Field Poll 9/29-10/8 +/- 3.2
39 +45 Zogby (R) 10/6-8 +/- 3.6
CT (8) 32 ++48 Univ. of CT 9/26-10/1 +/- 5
CO (8) ++45 33 Talmey-Drake 9/29-10/4 +/- 4
DC (3) 14 ++73 ARG 9/7-11 +/- 4
DE (3) 43 +45 Mason-Dixon 10/4-5 +/- 4
FL (25) +47 44 Mason-Dixon 10/5-7 +/- 3.5
43 +46 Schroth Assoc. 10/4-6 +/- 4
+46 42 Tarrance Group(R) 10/4-5 +/- 4
GA (13) ++52 36 Marketing Wksp 9/28-10/3 +/- 4
+47 41 Beth Schapiro (D) 10/4-9 +/- 4.5
HI (4) 29 ++57 ARG 9/5-11 +/- 4
IA (7) 39 +47 Research 2000 9/25-27 +/- 4
42 +44 PSI Poll 9/25 +/- 4.8
ID (4) ++53 31 ARG 9/6-9 +/- 4
IL (22) 40 +48 Research 2000 9/25-27 +/- 4
IN (12) ++45 33 Public Opn Lab 10/4-7 +/- 3.7
KS (6) ++55 32 ARG 9/12-15 +/- 4
KY (8) ++51 41 Bluegrass Poll 9/18-21 +/- 4
LA (9) +44 38 Southern Media 9/15-21 +/- 4
MA (12) 26 ++57 ARG 9/8-13 +/- 4
MD (10) 38 ++49 Mason-Dixon 10/6-8 +/- 4
ME (4) 31 +41 Strategic Mrktng 9/14-19 +/- 5
MI (18) 39 +45 EPIC/MRA 9/26-28 +/- 4
MN (10) 39 +45 Star Tribune 9/23-27 +/- 3.4
40 +47 Mason-Dixon 9/22-25 +/- 4
MO (11) 40 +43 ARG 9/14-20 +/- 4
MS (7) ++48 37 ARG 9/12-16 +/- 4
MT (3) ++48 37 Mason-Dixon 9/21-23 +/- 4
NE (5) ++53 32 ARG 9/7-10 +/- 4
NV (4) 43 +44 Public Opinion (R)9/19-21 +/- 4
NH (4) 38 +46 ARG 10/5-9 +/- 4
NJ (15) 36 ++50 Quinnipiac 9/26-10/1 +/- 3.4
34 ++48 Research 2000 9/21-27 +/- 3
NY (33) 35 ++51 Zogby 9/29-10/1 +/- 3.7
NM (5) 42 42 NM State Univ. 9/26-28 +/- 4
+44 41 Mason-Dixon 9/28-30 +/- 5
NC (14) +47 43 Mason-Dixon 10/5-8 +/- 4
+48 44 Research 2000 10/4-6 +/- 5
ND (3) ++47 35 Public Affairs 10/2-5 +/- 4
OH (21) +48 43 Columbus Dispatch 9/22-29 +/- 2
OK (8) ++51 33 Consumer Logic 9/23-10/2 +/- 3.5
OR (7) 41 +42 Davis, Hibbitts 9/5-11 +/- 4
PA (23) 36 +42 Univ. of CT 10/3-10 +/- 4
40 +42 Publc Opin St (R) 10/8-9 +/- 3.5
RI (4) 31 ++54 ARG 9/9-14 +/- 4
SC (8) ++52 39 Mason-Dixon 9/28-30 +/- 4
SD (3) ++55 34 ARG 9/6-10 +/- 4
TN (11) +46 43 Mason-Dixon 9/25-27 +/- 4
TX (32) ++58 30 ARG 9/14-19 +/- 4
UT (5) ++57 29 ARG 9/8-12 +/- 4
VA (13) +46 39 Rich. Times-Dis. 9/22-10/2 +/- 4.4
VT (3) 37 ++51 Research 2000 10/10-11 +/- 5
WA (11) 37 +44 Elway Poll 9/22-24 +/- 5
WV (5) +39 37 WV Research Ctr 9/18-16 +/- 6
WI (11) 38 +43 Market Shares 9/18-20 +/- 4
WY (3) ++57 37 Mason-Dixon 9/16-17 +/- 5

and suggested that Gore was at the time leading in states totalling some 277
electoral votes, sufficient to win. But that poll showed some dramatic changes,
as did others, from previous weeks, due in part, it was said, to Bush's strong
showing in the first two debates (along with Cheney's). It may also be attributable
to some very effective campaign ads the Republicans began running showing how
Gore's spending plans would erase the supposed budget surplus, and create a
new deficit were they to be effectuated. At least as of the middle of October,
the momentum had seemed to shift to Bush.

A week earlier, the same poll had the following statistics:


The chart below reflects the most recent reputable state polls conducted since 9/00 received by The Hotline, updated as new polls arrive. The number of electoral votes is listed next to each state in parentheses.

(++) indicates a lead outside the poll's margin of error; (+) means a lead within the margin (updated 10/10)


ELECTORAL COLLEGE TOTALS: (270 needed to win)
LEADS OUTSIDE MoE ALL LEADS
STATES EVs STATES EVs
Bush 18 140 Bush 26 223
Gore 11 149 Gore 22 277

STATE BUSH GORE POLL DATE MoE
(+ indicates lead inside the MoE, ++ a lead outside)
AL (9) ++52 36 ARG 9/11-15 +/- 4
AK (3) ++47 26 ARG 9/11-17 +/- 4
AR (6) +45 43 Mason-Dixon 9/26-28 +/- 4
AZ (8) 41 41 AZ Republic 9/14-18 +/- 4
36 ++46 AZ State Univ. 9/14-17 +/- 4
+43 39 ARG 9/9-13 +/- 4
CA (54) 37 ++50 Field Poll 9/29-10/8 +/- 3.2
CT (8) 32 ++48 Univ. of CT 9/26-10/1 +/- 5
CO (8) ++45 33 Talmey-Drake 9/29-10/4 +/- 4
DC (3) 14 ++73 ARG 9/7-11 +/- 4
DE (3) 40 ++50 Univ. of DE 9/26-10/1 +/- 5
FL (25) 43 +46 Schroth Assoc. 10/4-6 +/- 4
+46 42 Tarrance Group(R) 10/4-5 +/- 4
GA (13) ++52 36 Marketing Wksp 9/28-10/3 +/- 4
HI (4) 29 ++57 ARG 9/5-11 +/- 4
IA (7) 39 +47 Research 2000 9/25-27 +/- 4
42 +44 PSI Poll 9/25 +/- 4.8
ID (4) ++53 31 ARG 9/6-9 +/- 4
IL (22) 40 +48 Research 2000 9/25-27 +/- 4
IN (12) ++49 32 McLaughlin (R) 9/24-25 +/- 4
KS (6) ++55 32 ARG 9/12-15 +/- 4
KY (8) ++51 41 Bluegrass Poll 9/18-21 +/- 4
LA (9) +44 38 Southern Media 9/15-21 +/- 4
MA (12) 26 ++57 ARG 9/8-13 +/- 4
MD (10) 34 ++53 ARG 9/5-10 +/- 4
ME (4) 31 +41 Strategic Mrktng 9/14-19 +/- 5
MI (18) 39 +45 EPIC/MRA 9/26-28 +/- 4
MN (10) 39 +45 Star Tribune 9/23-27 +/- 3.4
40 +47 Mason-Dixon 9/22-25 +/- 4
MO (11) 40 +43 ARG 9/14-20 +/- 4
MS (7) ++48 37 ARG 9/12-16 +/- 4
MT (3) ++48 37 Mason-Dixon 9/21-23 +/- 4
NE (5) ++53 32 ARG 9/7-10 +/- 4
NV (4) 43 +44 Public Opinion (R)9/19-21 +/- 4
NH (4) +45 40 Research 2000 9/24-27 +/- 4
NJ (15) 36 ++50 Quinnipiac 9/26-10/1 +/- 3.4
34 ++48 Research 2000 9/21-27 +/- 3
NY (33) 35 ++51 Zogby 9/29-10/1 +/- 3.7
NM (5) 42 42 NM State Univ. 9/26-28 +/- 4
+44 41 Mason-Dixon 9/28-30 +/- 5
NC (14) +48 44 Research 2000 10/4-6 +/- 5
ND (3) ++47 35 Public Affairs 10/2-5 +/- 4
OH (21) +48 43 Columbus Dispatch 9/22-29 +/- 2
OK (8) ++51 33 Consumer Logic 9/23-10/2 +/- 3.5
OR (7) 41 +42 Davis, Hibbitts 9/5-11 +/- 4
PA (23) 37 ++49 Keystone 9/28-10/1 +/- 4.1
41 +45 Mason-Dixon 9/26-28 +/- 4
RI (4) 31 ++54 ARG 9/9-14 +/- 4
SC (8) ++52 39 Mason-Dixon 9/28-30 +/- 4
SD (3) ++55 34 ARG 9/6-10 +/- 4
TN (11) +46 43 Mason-Dixon 9/25-27 +/- 4
TX (32) ++58 30 ARG 9/14-19 +/- 4
UT (5) ++57 29 ARG 9/8-12 +/- 4
VA (13) +46 39 Rich. Times-Dis. 9/22-10/2 +/- 4.4
VT (3) 39 ++52 Research 2000 9/19-21 +/- 4
WA (11) 37 +44 Elway Poll 9/22-24 +/- 5
WV (5) +39 37 WV Research Ctr 9/18-16 +/- 6
WI (11) 38 +43 Market Shares 9/18-20 +/- 4
WY (3) ++57 37 Mason-Dixon 9/16-17 +/- 5


Interestingly, the momentum shift and the possible bias in the polls, offers
some support for the Pollstergeist methodology. On that basis, it is quite
possible that Bush well may carry 40 or 41 states with 438-442 electoral votes
to 9 states and the District of Columbia for Gore totalling 96-100 electors:

Bush
AL (9)
AK (3)
AR (6)
AZ (8)
CA (54)
CO (8)
DE (3)
FL (25)
GA (13)
IA (7)
ID (4)
IL (22)
IN (12)
KS (6)
KY (8)
LA (9)
MI (18)
MN (10)
MO (11)
MS (7)
MT (3)
NE (5)
NV (4)
NH (4)??????
NM (5)
NC (14)
ND (3)
OH (21)
OK (8)
OR (7)
PA (23)
SC (8)
SD (3)
TN (11)
TX (32)
UT (5)
VA (13)
WA (11)
WV (5)
WI (11)
WY (3)

Gore
CT (8)
DC (3)
HI (4)
MA (12)
MD (10)
ME (4)
NJ (15)
NY (33)
RI (4)
VT (3)


438 B 438-442
100 G 96-100

Discrepancies

It is not surprising that Vermont and Maine seemed to have possibly become
more Democrat in recent years than the projected estimates would indicate.
This may be in large measure due to their proximity to Massachusetts and
New York, and 'overflow' from them in the form of 'urban sprawl.' ejps has suggested
this phenomenon in reference to the New Hampshire Presidential Primary.

Changing Population Demographics in New Hampshire and Their Impact on
the Presidential Primary There

Until the middle of October, California appeared to be out of the question for Bush,
but it has narrowed somewhat. It is plausible that even with the voting irregularity
problems that beset that state, the projection estimate which suggests a Bush
win, may in actuality materialize even there.

It has also been suggested that Gore's decision to name Leiberman to the ticket
with him has helped him narrow the gap in many places such as most notably
Florida. There are variables that are unique to each election which could alter
the outcome from the projected one. It appears likely, however, that Bush will
carry Florida.

One indication that has been showing up in the polls throughout October, however,
may bode ill for the Democrats. Gore is actually trailing in West Virginia. That is
almost unthinkable! The projected estimates certainly do not indicate any liklihood
of that.

It is difficult to imagine that Bush would win over 400 electoral votes and Gore
perhaps less than 100, but that could well be the case. Of course, the numbers
from the polling included here are still from three weeks before the election. There is
also the real possibility that the Clinton administration might pull an "October
Surprise" much as they have too frequently during their tenure (such as bombings
which conveniently are carried out when Monica Lewinsky is to testify). The intent
might be to help Gore. Such abuse might work. It appears to have worked well
for Clinton, but it also seemed to work for JFK in 1962. It could also backfire
on the Democrats. Such exigencies could throw the projection estimates out the
window, of course, and the election could become an abnormal one instead of the
normal election anticipated by the electoral clock.

Short of that, however, the methodology 'predicts' a Bush victory. It also suggests
what the vote in each state might be, as well as being an indication of electoral votes. And then there is the matter of the US Congress. . .

Return to beginning of ejps
Return to beginning of this issue