Will the 2004 Presidential election mirror the 1992 election?

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Evil Captor *
I’m really puzzled at the way my fellow Dems and lefties repeatedly ignore the voting machine scandal when it comes up.

Really, what’s the point of voting if your vote doesn’t get counted?
If the Pubbies are up to funny biz with the voting machines – and they certainly proven themselves capable of being up to electoral funny biz of all kinds in 2000 – it doesn’t matter who the fuck the Dems run or what they do. Bush wins.

Agree completely – why isn’t this getting heavy coverage everywhere? I mean, we are talking about the bedrock of democratic elections here, aren’t we? Using uninspectable electronic voting machines with a known history for malfunctions and run by reknown Republican supporters is a mix that’s just screaming for disaster. And “The Arkansas Project” and the 2000 elections have already shown that the GOP knows no limits in how low they’re willing to go…

[Spoke]

“Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

This election will be different from '92, but not in the way december thinks. In ‘92, most voters had no memory of a strong economy under a Democratic President. The Democratic memory most fresh in voters’ minds then was Jimmy Carter, and his “mailaise.” As a result, Clinton had to fight an uphill battle to convince voters that a Democrat should be trusted with the nation’s economy.

In '04, voters will have a memory of boom times under a Democratic President.

Also, look for the Democratic base (complacent in the '00 election) to be energized. I think this is something particularly to look for if Dean gets nominated.

Finally, with the Republican embrace of all things Confederate, expect a larger black Democratic vote.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by John Mace *
RTF:

Any cites about the relative breakdown of Perot supporters?

I’m afraid I don’t; my Googling skills seem to be able to find 1996 polls, but it looks as if nobody’s bothered to go back and put 1992 polls online. Here’s the 1996 CNN exit poll data, fwiw; it shows that in 1996, Perot drew over half of his support from independents; the rest was evenly divided between Dems and GOP. His supporters’ liberal/moderate/conservative breakdown reflected that of the country as a whole.

From 1992, we know that Perot’s campaign themes were inhospitable to both the religious right and the anti-tax types; even then, that didn’t leave much GOP for Perot to appeal to.

I’m speaking strictly anectdotally, but I do remember asking my Perot voting friends whom they would have supported had Perot dropped out, and none of them said Clinton-- they all said Bush.

Here’s the deal: over the course of 1992, Bush’s poll showings never varied much; they pretty much stayed in the upper 30s to lower 40s. OTOH, when Perot left the race, it was Clinton’s numbers that went up from the mid-30s to the mid-50s (helped by the Dem post-convention bounce, but that’s still where the numbers went). And as Perot’s numbers started climbing again after his re-entry into the race in the fall, it was primarily Clinton’s numbers that suffered.

I have no idea whether I have any old newspaper clippings supporting my summary of the 1992 poll trends. I’ll try to remember to look. But that is what happened, to the best of my recollection.

[RTFirefly]

I remembered that I have access to the Washington Post archives through my library system (hence no link - sorry!), but it wasn’t as helpful as I’d hoped; I couldn’t find any poll numbers between early July and mid-October, 1992. But I found this helpful article from June 9, 1992: “Perot Leads Field in Poll” by E.J. Dionne, Jr.:

In a three-way race, Perot, who is expected to seek the presidency as an independent, was the choice of 36 percent of registered voters to 30 percent for Bush and 26 percent for Clinton, who has clinched the Democratic nomination. Among likely voters, Perot rises to 38 percent, while the percentages for Bush and Clinton stay the same. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Because Perot is beginning to win an edge from voters on what had been Clinton’s best issues, such as unemployment, and because he is emerging as the main beneficiary of anti-Bush sentiment, the poll suggests that Perot is now hurting Clinton much more than Bush.

*When Perot’s current supporters were asked whom they would vote for were Perot not to run, 50 percent chose Clinton and 29 percent Bush. * Absent Perot, Clinton had 44 percent among registered voters to 40 percent for Bush.

Italics mine.

[John_Mace]

RTF:

Very interesting. Certainly much better info than my anecdotal polling of my Perot voting friends (which probably was a grand total of 4 people). Thanks!

[futureman]

The most important thing to realize is the electoral college, how it will break down. Who is going to get NY, CA and FL? I expect FL to be a big point in the next election.

read this article from the NYTimes to see about GWB’s reelection strategy. Much of it hinges around NYC on the 3rd anniversary of 911. It seems like Bush is making a big effort to win New York this year, and is planning on using the 911 aniversary to help. Will the democrats bring up how NY and CA have the lowest per capita anti-terror spending of the nation, while having the most targets? On this issue, he seems very exposed. If I were him, I wouldn’t worry about NY and I would try to pick up California.

Now, I am not sure of this, but isn’t it true that if GWB won the states that he did last time, he wouldn’t win because of the change of the electoral college due to the census? I know that my state has lost an elector, probably to California or another growing state. I am no sure about this, but would guess that Bush’s strongholds: The middle portion of America isn’t growing like the east and west coasts are. The changes due to the census must be taken into account.

[RTFirefly]

Happy to help, John. It was kinda neat to backdoor my way into the Washington Post archives for free - perfectly legal, but still neat.

futureman - the shift is less from the heartland to the coasts than it is from north to south, and that’s basically a win for the GOP, which is strong across the southern tier from Virginia to Arizona. This Census PDF file shows all the changes from 1900 to 2000. Between the past election and the next, FL, GA, TX and AZ gained two electoral votes each, CA, CO, NV, NC gained one apiece, CT, IL, IN, MI, MS, OH, OK and WI lost one each, NY and PA lost two each; everyone else stayed the same. If every state was ultimately counted for the same party in 2004 as in 2000, Bush would have a net gain of 7 electoral votes from 2000 to 2004.