Electoral College Advantages, Regional Realignments, and Presidential Campaign Strategies, 1984-2004.

The closeness of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections provided a unique opportunity to observe what has been referred to as the "Red State/Blue State" Electoral College divide in the United States. The 2000 election further suggested a Republican Party Electoral College advantage, with George Bush winning the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. The closeness of these elections also focused attention on "battleground states."This paper examines three related questions. First, does the Republican Party have an Electoral College advantage, as suggested by the 2000 election? Second, what regional party realignments at the presidential level can be observed during the past twenty years? Third, do campaigns accurately identify battleground states?Techniques similar to Abramson, et al. (2006) are used to evaluate Electoral College advantage by creating "hypothetical" tie elections. The adjusted data suggest a trend away from a Republican Electoral College advantage to the Democrats, interrupted only by the 2000 election, but continued in 2004. A primary cause of this trend is Republican gains concentrated in smaller states where Electoral College victory is secure, including northern Plains and southern/border states.The data also reveal misinterpretations by both campaigns regarding several "battleground" states. For example, Daron Shaw's study (JOP, 1999) describes the Electoral College strategies of the 1996 Clinton and Dole campaigns, which identified "battleground," "marginal" and "base" states, assuming a close election. The campaigns wrongly classified crucial states, such as Illinois and Ohio. Other anomalies are noted. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]