The Prediction Edition

The post you've all (or maybe 2 of you) have been waiting for. The one where I give my prediction on the election. I must add a caveat at this point: anything is possible!!! I will actually give you several scenarios and then tell you which one I think is the most probable. First, since we have some non-Americans with us, a brief history of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is essentially a device created by the framers of the Constitution to remove the mass voting public one step from the selection of the executive AND also a salve to the small states whose votes they needed for ratification. The framers were not inclined to pure democracy which they believe could equate, at times, a form of mob rule. To mollify a potential passionate electorate, they created a system whereby voters actually choose representatives, or delegates (Electors) to vote for President and Vice-President. (In the early days of the Republic, Electors cast ballots for one individual- the person who received the most Electoral College votes was president and the runner-up was Vice President. Therefore in the first election George Washington won the presidency and John Adams was his vice-president. In the third election, after Washington's 2 terms, and by this point there was definite partisanship at work, Adams ran against Thomas Jefferson. Adams received the most votes and Jefferson as the runner up was his VP. This system was changed soon after to allow for separate votes for President and Vice-President so that "the ticket" would be elected as a whole). The amount of Electors in a given state is equal to the total number of representatives in Congress of that state (House + the 2 Senators) This also served to keep a relative balance between the small states and the more populous states. In a popular election, Rhode Island very small population would be virtually ignored over say the more populous New York State. Basically the ration is more leveled. This was the theory. While it is true today that many of the small states are ignored by one party (since they are traditionally one-sided in their allegiance in the winner take all format), it is really in the recent years of virtual 50-50 deadlocks that the small states have been shown to be most valuable (any single state in 2000 would have swung the election to Gore). There are many critics of the system, but as yet there has been no real challenge to the electoral system since it would require a Constitutional Amendment which would necessarily have to pass a ratification of many of those same small states. So to make clear the example: I am a registered voter in Utah's 2nd Congressional District. (Utah has 3 districts plus the 2 Senators for a total of 5 Electoral Votes). When I mark my ballot I'm voting for John Kerry and John Edwards, but technically I'm voting for 5 Democratic party Electors pledged to vote in the Electoral College for Kerry-Edwards. In comparison someone voting for Bush-Cheney technically votes for 5 Republican electors pledged to vote for Bush-Cheney. Which ever candidate received the most votes in a state (with a few exceptions which I'll mention below), that slate of electors is chosen to represent the state at the Electoral College and cast their votes for the ticket. There are two exceptions: Maine and Nebraska which handle their electors a bit differently. In these states, the winning ticket in each district receives an electoral vote for that district, then the overall popular vote winner received the other 2 votes. This has the potential of producing a split result in the state. For instance Kerry could win 3 Maine Electoral votes and Bush 1 vote if Bush won one of Maine's 2 districts but Kerry won overall. Colorado is voting for a change to the "Maine-Nebraska" system on its ballot this year, which if successful could change the outcome of the national election. Ron's First Prediction Alert: If ths initiative passes, and it just might, the Republicans will launched a vigorous court challenge to overturn it. Colorado is a highly split state politically- if this system had existed in 2000 Bush would have only won 5 of the 8 electoral votes for Colorado which would have meant Gore would have won the national election with or without Florida. Stay tuned for this one election night A candidate must win a majority of the electoral votes (or 270 total) to win the election. If no candidate wins 270 Electoral votes, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives and once there, each states Congressional delegation casts 1 vote for President. Under the current Congressional makeup, it can be assumed President Bush would be relected easily since the GOP controls 30 state delegations to the Democrats 15 (4 states have equal representations Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Wisconsin; while one state, Vermont, has an independent representative). So technically, President Bush would only need 269 votes to be re-elected-this becomes important when I lay out the scenarios later. The Vice President is then chosen by the Senate. The Senate is more evenly divided with 19 states are controled by GOP and 17 by Democrats; 13 states have split partisan contigents and Vermont (yet again) has 1 Democrat and 1 Independent (the former Republican Jim Jeffords! who cause such fun in 2001). Again see Scenario #3 below to watch the fun begin. One last thing about the Electoral College before we move on. Since a Constitutional Amendment removing the Electoral College seems unlikely, many states are considering the Colorado initiative as a means to change the system. In my opinion, this is highly dangerous. Just consider the gerrymandering of Texas districts under Republican control and we could see similar plagues throughout the country. On to the Scenarios and Predictions (gulp!) I'll lay out several scenarios of how the election could play out. I'll take into account the current polling numbers, historical trends, some anectdotal evidence that could skew the numbers, a few hunches, and probably a few blind shots in the dark that will make me look foolish on Wednesday morning. Current Polling: Most polls predict a close outcome in the popular vote. If we look at the broad scope (a poll of polls if you will), Bush has about a 3% point lead nationally. we must take a critical look at these polls however, because they might reveal some methodological problems. First, these polls generally take into account Likely Voters. The current projection holds that there could be between 9 and 12 million New Voters who will show up this Tuesday. This makes predictability upon these polls a little more difficult. Second, is the Nader factor. It is impossible at this point to judge what effect Nader will have on the race. In current polling models he seems to make little difference, drawing only 1% nationally. There is, in fact, little change in 2-way Bush-Kerry models, and 3-way Bush-Kerry-Nader models. However Nader's impact will come in the close battleground states in which he is on the ballot where he could take 2 or 3% points from Kerry (more than the national average would predict). Current polls put the undecided margin at 4%. This too can change the outcome obviously. So where do these numbers point us. The Elite Eight: Taking all of the above into account, there seems to be strong evidence that the race has come down to 8 battle-ground states (their electoral votes in parentheis) that should decide the race. New Hampshire(4), New Mexico(5), Iowa(7), Minnesota(10), Wisconsin(10), Florida(27), Ohio(20), and Pennsylvania(21) (the last three have been nicknamed "FLOHPA" which trust me, you will see more than enough times in the next 5 days). Most of the state races have pretty much hardened, and though there are still some states that could flip (such as Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas), conventional wisdom (and we get in trouble when we go with that too much) has Bush solid in 27 states for a total of 227 votes, while Kerry is solid in 15 states, and the District of Columbia for a total of 207 votes. So 104 votes up for grabs in the Elite Eight. Currently Bush has slight leads in Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and New Mexico (3 of which all went narrowly for Gore in 2000). Kerry has equally thin leads in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, and New Hampshire (Bush won New Hampshire and Ohio in 2000). Let's look at these one by one Iowa- Gore carried the state, which is traditionally a Democratic state, by only 5%. It's rural Republican base however has been trending more solidly in recent years and the state as a whole has been moving toward the GOP. If Bush holds this state it is a big problem for Kerry. Likewise Wisconsin, which narrowly went for Gore in 2000, is another traditionally Democratic state that has been trending more Republican. A Bush win here combined with Iowa will mean Kerry would need an almost perfect scenario in the other states to win. New Mexico, yet another close Gore win in 2000, has seen steady support for Bush. This is one that I think could flip back to Kerry largely if the Hispanic vote turns out in very high numbers. The Governor Bill Richardson, a former Clinton cabinet secretary is also an Hispanic and has been given the task of winning the state for Kerry. While ever state in this race clearly is a must win for either candidate, this would be a tough loss for Kerry. Florida (ah Florida!). What can you say about Florida. It has maintained a narrow lead for Bush throughout, however this may be one of the places that New Voters really make a difference. Traditionally heavy Democratic counties are showing a larger increase in voter registration that in Republican counties. If the numbers are accurate, and these new registered voters, especially non-Cuban hispanic voters, show up in large numbers, Kerry could take Florida. New Hampshire, is one of the states that I can clearly see flipping from 2000 to Kerry. New England voters tend to like New England candidates. This isn't safe by any means, but it would be the least surprising of the turnaround 2000 states. Minnesota is, like Vermont, a radical state. They are very independent minded, can change their opinion swiftly, and are very unpredictable. Though Minnesota has been traditionally a Democratic state, the Bush campaign has really been trying to take this one away from Kerry. This also could be a state where 'independent' voters actually break for Bush in contrast to the overall independent voting trends nationally- those crazy Minnesotans. Pennsylvania has long been THE battleground state. The huge urban centers of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the vast rural middle of the state, all are pieces of a very polarized state. How else to account for a Pro-Choice Governor (Ed Rendell) and a Right Wing Conservative Senator (Rick Santorum)?? Pennsylvania is a must-win for Kerry. Without it, I think it will be impossible for him to win without major upsets elsewhere. Finally, Ohio. Ohio has become the center of the political universe this year. It could become the Florida of 2000 with no winner being declared for sometime, and a flurry of lawsuits and recounts on the horizon. Ohio is where President Bush's domestic agenda is tested to its limits. Ohio has arguably suffered most in the Bush administration, losing manufacturing jobs at a higher rate than almost anywhere else. There has likely been more money spent in Ohio this election than ever before, and it is the state the Kerry campaign would most like to take from Bush who won the state in 2000. Scenario #1: The Bush Landslide Historically, incumbent presidents do not win close elections. They either lose big or win big. This of course could be the election that changes history, but in this scenario, Bush's national numbers hold firm. Voters, who have place Iraq and Terror as the primary focus of the election believe almost 2 to 1 that Bush is better on this than Kerry. Bush holds his 27 states, wins Florida, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico and defeats Kerry 316-232 (also Bush could snag one Maine district for a 317-231 win). Scenario #2: The Kerry Landslide Independent and swing voters in the midwest break significanly for Kerry. Hispanics in New Mexico and Florida brnig Kerry victories there as well. In this scenario, Kerry takes "FLOHPA", Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico and New Hampshire and defeats Bush 314-234. Scenario #3: Oh Dear God Let's Call It A Draw This is the most complex, but increasingly more possible outcome. Here's how it works. Kerry wins Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota(or Wisconsin), plus Iowa and New Hampshire, while Bush wins Florida, Wisconsin(or Minnesota), plus New Mexico...egads, 269 to 269. Now this is the point that the Maine district could come into play, or even a Colorado split if that holds. There's even a possibility that if thrown into the House, Bush would almost assuredly win, but the divided Senate select Edwards as the Vice President. This is the nightmare scenario (or if you're a political junkie like me the DREAM scenario). Of course if the election were thrown into the house, Bush would likely win and the Senate, ever mindful of trying to be bipartisan would likely vote Cheney (but those of us who marvelled at then Vice President Al Gore as Senate President having to oversee the certification of his own contested defeat in 2000 would love the irony of Dick Cheney in a similar scenario. Of couse the even greater moment would be Cheney casting a tie breaking vote electing HIMSELF!!!! take that sports fans) Scenario #'s 4 & 5: Too Close for Comfort In these two, the status quo doesn't change much. In one version Bush maintains his 4 states and defeats Kerry 276-262. In other one of the non-FLOHPA states flips to Kerry, (maybe Wisconsin) and Kerry wins 272-266. If you've stayed awake this long, I'm grateful. I've gone back and forth on this for so long. As much as I'd like to believe the evidence that the New Voters and Independents are breaking so heavily for Kerry, I can't bring myself to believe in it all that much. The edge in any close race usually goes to the incumbent. In uncertain times, voters tend to go with what they know over what they don't. As I look at the situation, as dispassionately as I can, the facts are that Bush has more room to play, and the margin of error for Kerry is slim. The places that Bush leads I sense he's more likely to hold than the places that Kerry does, and even if all holds as is, Bush still has the numbers. The biggest problem for Bush that I see is that his ceiling number of 49%. As bad as Kerry got in the campaign, or as negative as the Bush administration went on him, Bush still never crept above 49%. If I believed Nader was going to take 4% of the vote, I'd say it wasn't a problem for Bush since 49% would win easily. However I see the popular vote totals really close. Still, this race isn't won on the popular vote, as this whole post has made clear. In 2000, I predicted a split between the Popular Vote and the Electoral College (genius prediction when it hadn't happened in 100 years). Of course my genius was short lived since I called the popular vote for Bush and Electoral vote for Gore and it was just the opposite. I'm almost tempted to make the same prediction this time. But just "almost". As much as I hate to admit it, since I'm a Kerry supporter, I think there's too much hill to climb. I hope against hope that the perfect storm of undecided, new, and independent voters break his way, but it's only a hope. I think the Bush team has done good work in the midwest on stealing some swing states from the Democrats. I think Iowa, Wisconsin will go Bush. I also have to admit that I think New Mexico will go his way. While I think Kerry will hold Pennsylvania and maybe Ohio and Minnestoa, I think he could lose one of the three. Right now I'm going with Scenario #4. Bush wins his 27 states plus Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico giving him 31 states and 276 electoral votes to John Kerry's 15 states and DC plus Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and New Hampshire for 262 electoral votes. I think the popular vote will break down Bush 50%, Kerry 49%, Nader 1% with Bush getting around 57.5 million votes, Kerry 56.5 million and Nader about 1.5 million. There you have it. I hope I'm wrong, and I won't be surprised if I am. I won't be surprised to see Kerry or Bush roll off a big win (Scenarios 1 or 2). I won't be surprised to see Colorado or Maine skew the results. I won't be surprised to see a number of court challenges to the results. Expect the unexpected I guess. What I'd like to see, no matter what the outcome, is the peaceful transition (or resumation) of power. I'd like to see Americans proud of their system and the leaders they choose again. I'd like to see people around the world marvel at the way we shift from one party to another, one administration to another, without military coups, riots in the streets, or suppression. I'd like to see the system that we tout as the best, the pattern for other nations to adopt, work. Then I'd like to see us focus on the problems facing society such as Poverty, Discrimination, Terrorism, and Hate, not with demonization of opposing views, but with the shared hope of a better tomorrow for all. I'd like to see America restored to a place of respect and admiration, proud of our accomplishments but humbled by our good fortune. A beacon to the world of possibility. I'd like America to return to the vision of John Kennedy that harkens the words of Isiah to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free." I'd like to see American help create a world "where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved"...With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds...knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."