06/13/2002 Archived Entry: "Link to GOP Mehlman & Rove's private analysis of 2002 & 2004 races"

Here it is, NY Times PDF, and PA Politics Frames.

It's interesting that Rove on the last slide quotes Rangel, who was cheered, upon hailing Clinton as "the last elected President of the US" and said, "it is our job to say we're not getting over Florida." Obviously, the GOP's biggest fear is of that 2000 fiasco in Florida becoming the defining issue in the 2004 election, hence the importance of Jeb and the Everglades. Personally, I think they should be more worried about the economy and deficits.

Here, from the point of perspective of Karl Rove, are the states in play for 2004:

Democrats start with 161 safe EV's, Bush starts with 180.

The toss-ups states

likely lean Democrat: WA(11) MN(10) MI(17) PA(21) ME(4)
slight lean Democrat: OR(7) NM(5) IA(7) WI(10)
slight lean Republican: NV(5) MO(11) TN(11) OH(20) NH(4) FL(27)
likely lean Republican: WV(5) NC(15) CT(7)

Of 2002 note, Mehlman has 25 incumbent House GOP members that face competitive elections (including 11 "tier one" vulnerabilities), and 19 competitive open seats, including NJ 5th, and AL 3rd. The only 10 Democrats they percieve as vulnerable are NV:1-Berkley; UT 2nd-Matheson; KS 3rd-Moore; ND-Pomeroy; IA-3rd-Boswell; IN-7th-Carson; IN 9th-Hill; KY 4th-Lucas; FL 5th-Thurman; NJ 12h-Holt.

For Governor, Mehlman notes as strong Democratic takeover prospects: AZ, MN, TN, IL, WI, MI, PA MA. And as strong Republican takeover prospects: AK, AL, SC, VT, NH. It looks to me like a weak analysis, not very informed. For example, ranking CO and OH as possible Democratic takeovers, SD and KS as no contests. In fact, it's directly the opposite concerning those two pairs. Also missing, HI as a strong Republican takeover prospect, and OK, with Richardson as an Independent, is a three way toss-up.

Replies: 8 comments

If Stock market at 13000 and unemployment rate at 4.5% in April 2004:

slight lean Democrat: WA(11) MN(10) ME(4), CA (55)
toss-up : OR(7) NM(5) IA(7) WI(10)MI(17) PA(21) NY (31) NV(5)-due to Yuca, IL(?), NJ(?)
Republican likely: MO(11) TN(11) OH(20) NH(4) FL(27)WV(5)
strong Republican: NC(15) CT(7)and all southern and Rocky Mountain states

If Stock market at 10500 and unemployment rate over 5% in April 2004:

strong Democrat: WA(11) MN(10) ME(4), CA (55) OR(7) NM(5) IA(7) WI(10)MI(17) PA(21) NY (31) NV(5)-due to Yuca, IL(?), NJ(?)
toss-up : MO(11) TN(11) OH(20) NH(4) FL(27)WV(5), KY(8)
Republican likely:IN(10), CT(7)
strong Republican: NC(15)and all other southern and Rocky Mountain states.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/14/2002 07:18 AM PST

For 2002 watch the stock market and unemployment rate in September and October. If the stock market is anywhere below 9500, the GOP may be toast. If it is below 9000 it could be a long night for the GOP. On the flip side if it is over 10,000 and less than 10,500 a close call in the House races. Over 10,500 GOP likely keeps the House, that is barring any other unforseen events.

You are right about the Governor's handicapping by Rove. VT..not going to happen. NH is very close to call. Dems have a better chance in ME than in MA. He has to have his head examined if he thinks that under the current economic circumstances the GOP holds TN. Otherwise the TN voters need to have their heads examined., ie., they are a sucker for punishment. OH no chance for the Democrats unless the governor had some shady relationship with Traficant and his buddies. SD and KS are probably lean GOP. I am not sure that HI is a strong GOP prospect...as I have told you, and this comes from an American of Asian heritage...HI is the Asian version of white Texans although they are not anywhere as violent over there as in Texas. If the GOP runs an Asian he or she would likely win. You have missed something else that is missing from the Rove analysis. Latest polls indicate a Richardson landslide in NM.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/14/2002 07:29 AM PST

I have been taken to task for my comments on Texas being a traditionally racist state. Attached is a viewpoint by two people. One is from Virgil Van Camp who says that he would never vote for anyone with a name ending with a z. Poor ignorant chap...he does not even know that there are Hispanics with names such as Bonilla, Frenk, Mueller, Muller and Fox although he lives right next to Mexico. In all my days of following US politics, I have never heard of this kind of garbage from folks in Washington State (when Locke was running for Governor) or for that matter in Oregon (when David Wu was running for Congress), but I hear it all the time from white Texans. It is always blacks this or hispanics this or Asians taking too many slots at the University and that they would never vote for a minority. I have never heard it in Vermont either. However, I must note that I have heard this kind of crap from Asians and Hawaiians in Hawaii. They of course learnt it from the Texans and the southerners.

http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/060702/opi_counterpoint.shtml

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/14/2002 07:40 AM PST

Hey Raj, while Bush would undoubtedly be helped by a strong economy, there is no way California is in play in 2004. Not only are the state's urban centers reliably liberal, but the state's largest growing minority group (us Latinos) has a deep aversion to the GOP. (And good economy or bad, Latinos are generally left behind.)

Also this analysis assumes the Democratic nominee is a northerner. If, for example, Edwards wins the nomination, I would say NC was a lean-Dem. And, different southern states might be in play depending on who the vice-presidential candidate would be.

Nevada is a toss-up or lean-Dem regardless of the economy, given Bush's cataclysmic betrayal of the state over Yuca.

But your basic premise is solid. The economy will have everything to do with the outcome of the next two election cycles.

Posted by Kos @ 06/14/2002 09:21 AM PST

In looking over Roves Analysis, he obviously thinks Edwards is on the ticket, and Lieberman is not, given his rankings of NC and CT.

CT, I can't imagine going Republican, no matter who the Dem nominees are. Seems that Bush is wanting his home state, and Rove has it up there for him, but it's delusionary thinking. Same with WA/OR imo. They came as close in 2000 as they will get in those states.

Posted by myDD @ 06/14/2002 09:38 AM PST

What bothers me is that Rove is not advising the President to do something about the economy, perhaps change his economic team. Today, the consumer confidence plunges and I as an economist asked some folks in the government what their dollar policy is. They told me that neither O'Neill nor "laughing stock" Lindsey know for sure. Rove should be advising the President to change his economics team and bring in authentic economists who may be conservative such as Barro, Becker or Boskin instead of quacks such as O'Neill and Mitchell who may know how to run a corporation but not the country's let alone the global economy.

California perhaps is not in play. But, there is a slim chance. If the Dems win the house by over a five seat margin, the amnesty bill regarding illegals may pass and the Hispanics may have some sympathy for Bush although not for the GOP. Furthermore, I believe that the message will be heard and Miguel Gonzalez will likely replace Ashcroft. But, may be I am being very naive based on the past history of the California GOP.

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/14/2002 10:53 AM PST

More news of bigotry from Texas. Will this happen in Washington State or Oregon? I have not hear of any.

http://www.asianweek.com/2002_06_07/news_upfront.html

Posted by G.C. Raj @ 06/14/2002 01:38 PM PST

Rove realizes what you have said for a long time. The Republicans are far more vulnerable in this election cycle than it appears.
It is very possible that we could see a tide develop in the last two weeks of the campaign.
I would not be totaly shocked if the Democrats picked up 5 Senate seats this year.

Posted by TOM @ 06/18/2002 09:15 AM PST