|
PAKPAC
Analysis of the "Battleground States" OR "Purple
States" for the 2004 Presidential Elections.
As we evaluate the current polls and factor in the margin of error,
voters with no opinions, the ever changing domestic economic situation
and the war on Iraq, it is quite obvious that the 2004 elections
will be a dead heat.
The elections results would depend heavily on the “Battleground
States” also referred to as the “Purple State”.
If we consider the states in which there was a less than 7 % difference
between the votes of the 2000 elections, some of the states stand
out. (We are considering only these States as the battleground states)
Analysis of the last 4 presidential elections with respect to the
purple states is shown in table 1. With respect to the battleground
states won by Bush in 2000, (The numbers in brackets represent the
electoral votes) {Florida (27), Ohio (20), Missouri (11), Tennessee
(11), Arizona (10), Arkansas (6), Nevada (5), West Virginia (5),
and New Hampshire (4)} each one of them favored Democratic President
Bill Clinton in 1996. This suggests that these particular states
are subject to influence on the popularity of the prevailing candidate
rather than loyalty to a particular political party.
Looking at the battleground states won by Al Gore in 2000 {Pennsylvania
(21), Michigan (17), Washington (11), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin
(10), Iowa (7), Oregon (7), New Mexico (5), Maine (4)} the pattern
of the last 4 years that were studies by us suggests that democratic
candidates won more frequently in these states. If one evaluates
the margin of victory in these states (Table 2), it is obvious that
in 2000 there were many very close races even in these traditionally
democrat supporting states.
Table 2 looks at the margin of victory to give us an idea, how
many votes it took to actually change the results of a specific
state.
Table 1:
This table shows the battleground states by the Democratic and Republican
Presidential Candidate Vitories, 1988-2000.
| States Won by BUSH 2000 |
1988 |
1992 |
1996 |
2000 |
| Florida (27) |
R |
R |
D |
R |
| Ohio (20) |
R |
D |
D |
R |
| Missouri(11) |
R |
D |
D |
R |
| Tennessee (11) |
R |
D |
D |
R |
| Arizona (10) |
R |
R |
D |
R |
| Arkansas (6) |
R |
D |
D |
R |
| Nevada (5) |
R |
D |
D |
R |
| West Virginia (5) |
D |
D |
D |
R |
| New Hampshire (4) |
R |
D |
D |
R |
| |
|
|
|
|
| States Won By GORE 2000 |
|
|
|
|
| Pennsylvania (21) |
R |
D |
D |
D |
| Michigan (17) |
R |
D |
D |
D |
| Washington (11) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| Minnesota (10) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| Wisconsin (10) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| Iowa (7) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| Oregon (7) |
D |
D |
D |
D |
| New Mexico (5) |
R |
D |
D |
D |
| Maine (4) |
R |
D |
D |
D |
| |
|
|
|
|
Table 2:
The following table shows the Actual Votes, Margin of Victory, and
the difference between Gore and Bush in the 2000 Elections.
| States Won by BUSH 2000 |
GORE |
BUSH |
DIFFERENCE |
% |
| Florida (27) |
2,192,253 |
2,912,790 |
537 |
.01 |
| Ohio (20) |
2,183,628 |
2,350,363 |
66,735 |
3.7 |
| Missouri(11) |
1,111,138 |
1,189,924 |
78,786 |
3.3 |
| Tennessee (11) |
981,720 |
1,060,949 |
80,229 |
3.9 |
| Arizona (10) |
685,341 |
781,652 |
96,311 |
6.6 |
| Arkansas (6) |
422,768 |
472,940 |
50,172 |
5.6 |
| Nevada (5) |
279,978 |
301,575 |
21,597 |
3.7 |
| West Virginia (5) |
295,497 |
336,475 |
40,978 |
6.5 |
| New Hampshire (4) |
266,346 |
273,889 |
7,211 |
1.3 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| States Won By GORE 2000 |
|
|
|
|
| Pennsylvania (21) |
2,485,967 |
2,281,127 |
204,840 |
4.3 |
| Michigan (17) |
2,170,418 |
1,953,139 |
217,279 |
5.2 |
| Washington (11) |
1,247,652 |
1,108,864 |
138,788 |
5.9 |
| Minnesota (10) |
2,268,266 |
1,109,659 |
58,607 |
2.6 |
| Wisconsin (10) |
1,242,987 |
1,237,279 |
5,708 |
0.2 |
| Iowa (7) |
638,517 |
634,373 |
4,144 |
0.3 |
| Oregon (7) |
720,342 |
713,577 |
6,765 |
0.5 |
| New Mexico (5) |
286,783 |
286,418 |
365 |
0.1 |
| Maine (4) |
1,319,951 |
878,502 |
33,335 |
5.5 |
| |
|
|
|
|
Both these tables tell us that it does not take many votes to influence
the results of the specific battleground states, which in turn can
change the elections results altogether. Any community which can
influence 5-7% votes can potentially easily influnce who the next
President of United States will be.
In order to be an important player in the 2004 election
we must do the following:
A) Register to vote:
You can do this ONLINE,
and make sure that all community members, friends, also register.
Initiate the process in every Masjid. Start educating the voters.
Initiate registration drives especially in the battleground states.
B) Make sure that on the Election Day you do go out and give your
vote. Those outside the country must mail their votes.
C) Make sure that you all call the campaigns of both candidates
and keep them engaged on your issues.
D) Please share this information with other Pakistani
American Organizations, Muslim American Organizations and other
Coalitions Partners, locally and nationally.
E) Please
join and support PAKPAC.
|
|