The Swing State Project

Following up on some previous comment threads and journal entries, I'd like to informally inaugurate what I'm calling the "Swing State Project". I'd like to see us (ie, Democrats, DailyKosians, anyone who wants to see Bush gone in 2004) gather as much relevant information about the states that'll be up for grabs in 2004.

Here's my list of 19 swing states, and the party they went for in 2000 in parentheses:

Arizona (GOP)
Arkansas (GOP)
Colorado (GOP)
Florida (GOP)
Iowa (Dem)
Louisiana (GOP)
Michigan (Dem)
Minnesota (Dem)
Missouri (GOP)
Nevada (GOP)
New Hampshire (GOP)
New Mexico (Dem)
Ohio (GOP)
Oregon (Dem)
Pennsylvania (Dem)
Tennessee (GOP)
Virginia (GOP)
West Virginia (GOP)
Wisconsin (Dem)

If you have any thoughts about why we might win some of the states we lost in 2000 - or, alternately, why we might lose some of the states we won - I'd love to know, and I'm sure others would as well.

I'm also including some thoughts below. Please click through for more info.

First, I'll explain my methodology as to how I chose the "swing" states. I'm including any state where the margin of victory between Gore + Nader and Bush + Buchanan was 6 points or less. I'm including one outlier, Louisiana, which had an 8-point margin (more on that later). MBW over at Wampum used a similar methodology and came up with the same list.

So here's the list (where "W" stands for Bush and "B" stands for Buchanan):

ST      G-W-N-B    (G+N)-(W+B)    EVs
MI    51-47-2-0       6         17
MN    48-46-5-1       6         10
PA    51-47-2-0       6         21
OR    47-47-5-0       5          7
NM    48-48-4-0       4          5
WI    48-48-4-0       4         10
IA    49-48-2-1       2          7
NH    47-48-4-0       3          4
FL    49-49-2-0       2         27
MO    47-51-2-0      -2         11
NV    46-49-2-1      -2          5
OH    46-50-3-1      -2         20
TN    48-51-1-0      -2         11
AZ    45-51-3-1      -4         10
WV    46-52-2-0      -4          5
AR    45-51-2-1      -5          6
CO    42-51-5-1      -5          9
VA    45-52-2-0      -5         13
LA    45-53-1-1      -8          9

The 14 truly safe Dem states give us a baseline of 183 EVs. The GOP's safe 18 states give them just 148 EVs. The 19 swing states have a total of 207 EVs. (There are 51 "states" because I'm including DC.)

Oh, and as for Louisiana, I'm including it because Clinton won it twice and because of Landrieu's recent victory. If Blanco loses to Jindal in the upcoming gubernatorial election, then I'll reconsider LA's inclusion.

So, getting to the heart of this "project", my preferred format for discussing each of these states is like this:

Why we'll win FL this time: Nader voters will come back to the Dem fold; anger over 2000 will increase Dem turnout, especially among minorities; no f-ing butterfly ballot this time around.

Why we'll lose FL again: Lots of pork provided by Dubya to FL; Jeb.

Several people have already posted some great thoughts on these states:

WI
AR, OR, MI & more
PA

At some point, I'll try to pull various comments together and post occasional updates. In the meantime, I'd love to hear what everyone else has to say about these swing states.

•  Re: The Swing State Project

  I've created a new blog devoted to this subject, though of course I'll continue posting here as well. And I've posted a map that highlights the swing states.

  by DavidNYC on Sun Oct 19, 2003 at 06:09:42 PM PDT

•  great project David

  This is a great project David. Something that can really be useful to voters. A major issue in the primaries is electability in the general election. While there are general trends for or against Democrats in each state we also need to focus on individual candidates. Can I ask that you track how each major candidate is performing in head to head polls against Bush in the swing states?
  

  by Cogito on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 01:25:25 AM PDT

  •  Re: great project David

    Hey, Cogito. Thanks for the kind words. I do plan on including some polling information, but of course, whenever I post, feel free to add info of your own.

    Separately, I've read your posts about electability and I am not entirely inclined to agree with your thesis, for a few reasons:

    1. "Electability" is very hard to measure. Polls are certainly imperfect - just ask Joe Lieberman.
    2. I think Candidate A can be more electable than Candidate B in State X, and the reverse may be true in State Y.
    3. And lastly, I think it's too early for head-to-head matchups of Dems candidates vs. Bush. The fact that many of these are very close is a heartening sign, but I still think most of the Dems have too little name recognition at this point. I think that things will "balance out" for whomever gets the nomination.

    In any event, I still like looking at polls, and if I find any relevant ones, I'll be sure to mention them in my posts. And as I said, feel free to contribute your thoughts at any time.

    P.S. I'm going to go through the states one by one. I'll be starting with a post on New Hampshire soon - perhaps tonight.

    by DavidNYC on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 04:35:34 AM PDT

    •  understand about the uncertainty

      Clearly, the fact that we have to choose a nominee with so little information is a great disadvantage. But we must muddle through with the information available.

      The decision on who to vote for and support in the primaries is complex and has three components:

      1. the policies that would result as a consequence of electing each candidate;
      2. the probability each candidate has of winning the general election against Bush; and
      3. the probability each candidate is viable in the primaries.

      The last two concerns are strategic in the sense that the answers depend on how others are going to behave. Poll information is an important source of information about how others are going to behave even with all its flaws. The thing I like about your project is that it will help people make a decision. Now, if you are a partisan Dean supporter you may not want to highlight certain kinds of information e.g., head to head poll results. Given that the number one concern most of us have is defeating Bush I think you should it is better to present the information and let people reach their own conclusions.

      by Cogito on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 05:09:19 AM PDT

      •  Re: understand about the uncertainty

        Indeed, I am a Dean supporter. But I intend for my project to be as free from bias as possible. This is because I believe (as Kos does) that we have a great set of candidates and that any one of them (the serious ones, at least) could beat Bush. And I'd wholeheartedly support any of them, in the event that Dean is not the nominee.

        However, I think my site will become more interesting after the nominee is decided. I don't see individual candidates making huge differences in most of the swing states (of course, there are exceptions - I'll grant Clark has a better shot at Arkansas than anyone else, say). And my primary motive is just simply to know more about each of these swing states - it's not to help people "choose more strategically" when picking a primary candidate to support, again because I think all of the top candidates can beat Bush.

        by DavidNYC on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 07:36:11 AM PDT

•  Re: The Swing State Project

  Great idea.

  by Meteor Blades on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 01:30:09 PM PDT

•  Re: The Swing State Project

  If Dean is the nominee, he better bring NH.

  If Clark is the nominee, he better bring AR.

  I would think Arizona, Colorado, West Virginia, Missouri and Kentucky would be fertile pick-off states.

  Has somebody got the states ranked by how close they were in 2000?

  by Carl Nyberg on Tue Oct 21, 2003 at 05:51:20 AM PDT

•  Re: The Swing State Project

  i think if we run clark arkansas is a lock-up and the most guaranteed state to return to the dems in 2004 (i would have voted for it in your poll if it were an option).

  by josh in chi town on Tue Oct 21, 2003 at 07:54:53 AM PDT

•  Re: The Swing State Project

  NV, hands down.  Yucca Mountain.

  by Trapper John on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 05:03:46 AM PDT