So I usually don't like numerical analysis of an election almost a year away. And I don't buy it when people start a post by saying, "now assuming the Dem can win all the states Gore won..." Clearly things aren't that simple.
But it occurred to me that there's one analysis that may be useful. Assuming next year is not a blowout, which states are really in play? For this we may be able to glean something from 2000. So here's what I did:
I Made a list of which states were reasonably close in 2004. To do this, I did (%Bush) - (%Gore + 1/2[%Nader]). If this total was within 5 percentage points, I called it "close."
Here's what I found:
State/# electoral votes in 2004
Went to Bush:
Arizona/10
Arkansas/6
Florida/27
Missouri/11
Nevada/5
New Hampshire/4
Ohio/20
Tennessee/11
W. Virginia/5
---------------
Total/99
Went to Gore:
Iowa/7
Michigan/17
Minnesota/10
New Mexico/5
Oregon/7
Pennsylvania/21
Wisconsin/10
---------------
Total/77
Conclusion: Based on these numbers alone, and not considering real-world events, it appears that the Dem has a slight advantage in toss-up states.
My personal feeling is that Nevada, Ohio, and possibly New Hampshire are lean-Dem in 2004. I don't think any of the Gore states are particularly lean-Republican, although Pennsylvania and Michigan clearly need to be defended fiercely.
My personal suspicion is that 2004 will not be nearly as close as 2000. I expect that either Bush will manage to confuse and instill fear in the country leading to a clear re-election... or more likely, he will suffer a major fiscal/foreign/scandal crisis that will tarnish him severely. In either case, even not-so-close states from 2000 could come into play.
Regardless of who our candidate is, I think we can safely say one thing: 2004 will be no landslide. Texas and the Deep South ain't budging, and neither is California or the Northeast. A clear victory, maybe. But absent an epic event, not a landslide either way.