Fun with electoral math

There's been a lot of talk about the need for the eventual democratic nominee to win southern states, if he is to be able to defeat President Bush. To an extent, history agrees. The last two democratic presidents were southerners. No non-southern Democrat has been president in the last forty years. With the exception of psuedo-southerner Al Gore, no modern day southerner of a major party has lost a presidential election. Obviously, much of the conventional wisdom is that a candidate needs to do well in the south in order to win the nomination. Many primary voters are taking this into account, helping to benefit the southern candidates. Let's see what a candidate needs to win an election, even if he doesn't take a southern state.

Firstly, let's assume that both candidates are reasonably strong. Let's also assume that spoiler candidates (i.e. Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan) don't have a significant factor in the race. Furthermore, we will assume that there are no major changes in the War on Terrorism, Iraq War, the economy, or any other issue that may affect presidential politics.

If Bush wins the entire south, in addition to every state that was solidly Republican in 2000, he would have 223 electoral votes. If the democrat gets every state that was solidly democratic in 2000, he would have 204 electoral votes.

In this scenario (one of many,) there would be twelve toss-up states. A

Democrat would need 270 votes, or 66 of the still remaining 111 electoral votes to win the election. A Republican would need 46 of these votes to put the race into the Republican Congress, which would presumably break the tie in the President's favor.

Arizona (10 electoral votes): Although the Bush took this state by 6 percent

(3 percent for Nader, 1 percent for Buchanan), the significant numbers of Latino populations and retirees moving to the state make it much more competitive. It is a difficult state to call, so we'll save it for later.

Nevada (5): If Naderites had voted for Gore, it would have been an extremely close race. Demographics also favor Democrats, as many Latinos (who vote predominately Democratic) have moved to the state. Factor in the storage of nuclear material in the state (contrary to Bush's campaign promises), which is obviously unpopular, and it could very easily go to the Democrat.

Iowa (7): Went for Gore by a couple of percentage points, plus a few for Nader. This state will not be won without a very tough fight, but will most probably vote Democratic.

Michigan (17): Went for Gore by 4 percent, plus 2 percent went for Nader. Many feel that the state's large Arab community has been alienated by the War on Terrorism, and Michigan has also lost many manufacturing jobs. It will likely be a Democratic state.

Missouri (11): Went for Bush last time, and in 2002 tossed out Democratic Senator Jean Carnahan. If Dick Gephardt runs as Vice President, it might be close, but otherwise it is going to vote for Bush.

Minnesota (10): Went for Gore by 2 percent, and Nader got 5 percent. Furthermore, many of the state's Democrats are fiercely motivated by the death of Senator Wellstone, and the unusual loss of his senatorial seat 2002. It is a likely Democratic state.

Ohio (20): Went for Bush by 4 percent, and Nader got 3 percent. It was virtually ignored by Gore during the campaign. This is a key union/rust belt state, and may very well decide the election. Gore's gun position hurt him in this very socially conservative state. While the Democrat will not have that liability, he will have to worry about civil unions being a potential wedge issue. However, the lack of job growth will hurt Bush in this manufacturing-heavy state. This is a tossup.

Oregon (7): Gore won by fewer than 7,000 votes, with 5 percent going for Nader. I think it'll go Democrat again.

New Hampshire (4): Again, almost a statistical tie in 2000. Again, guns hurt Gore here. This state usually tends to vote Republican, although a Northeasterner may help carry this state. However, I think it will probably be a Bush state (although very closely).

New Mexico (5): Gore won this state in 2000 by a few hundred votes. If popular Democratic Governor Bill Richardson were to run as vice president, it would safely go Democratic. However, when one factors in 4 percent of Nader voters and an increasing Latino population, it appears that it will likely go Democratic anyway.

West Virginia (5): Similarly to other states, Gore's gun position hurt him in 2000, while the loss of manufacturing jobs will hurt Bush in 2004. However, Bush will probably take this state.

Wisconsin (10): Dead even in 2000, plus 4 percent went for Nader. Although I have nothing but my gut to guide me, I think that the Democrat will win this state.

That leaves every state but Ohio and Arizona, and the electoral count 265-243 in favor of the Democratic candidate. Unless both states went to Bush, the Democrat would win in this scenario. Even without the South, the margin is razor-thin, but it is still very possible for a Democrat to win.

But what would happen if a Democrat picked up Florida (27) or Tennessee (11)...

Eric Newville is a freshman with an undeclared major.