running the numbers

The material quoted in this post is wonkish, but it comess from Michael Barone and so is well worth the effort. (Via InstaPundit.)

I have a theory—I can't prove it; it's just a theory—that in these polarizing times there are low ceilings on both of our political parties. Both are unacceptable to near majorities of the voters. My theory is that the ceiling on the Democrats is about 51 or 52 percent and the ceiling on the Republicans is a little higher, about 53 or 54 percent.

Barone is almost certainly correct, even if “these polarizing times” are likely a semipermanent state of affairs. The current war has served to bring cultural fault lines into bold relief, but is itself not a primary cause of those cracks. The root cause is rather the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American left—and as the Democratic Party has hitched its wagon to this falling star, it is unlikely to achieve lasting majority status again anytime in the next twenty years. (See also last Sunday's installment of The Belmont Club.)

Barone continues (emphasis added):

The theory about the Democrats can be tested by looking at the 1996 and 2000 elections, when the Democrats were the incumbent presidential party in times of apparent peace and apparent prosperity—the best posture in which a party can run. Bill Clinton in 1996 won with 49 percent of the vote; if you add in one third of the Perot voters (they were mostly anti-Clinton that year), you get 51 percent. Al Gore in 2000 won 48 percent of the vote; if you add in two thirds of the Nader vote, you get 50 percent. Starting with 1994, Democrats have not won more than 48.5 percent of the popular vote for the House of Representatives; they did that in 1996 and won 48 percent in 1998 and 2000 and 46 percent in 2002. John Kerry, currently averaging 45 percent in today's polls, which would translate into something like 47 percent in an election, is running some distance below the ceiling, in this view.

It's not so easy to test my theory that Republicans have a 53 or 54 percent ceiling. Their best performances in the past decade have been in House elections, 52 percent in 1994 and 51 percent in 2002. George W. Bush is not running this year as an incumbent in a time of apparent peace or, in public perceptions, a time of apparent prosperity. (Actually, the economic numbers are about where they were when Bill Clinton was running for re-election in 1996, but Old Media consistently report economic news more pessimistically when Republicans hold the White House than when Democrats do.) For Bush to be ahead after the pummeling he has taken from Old Media and from the Democratic-funded 527 organizations' $60 million-plus ad runs is a considerable achievement. But of course running ahead two weeks out is not the same as winning the election. For a definitive assessment of the polls we must wait for the election results.

In mid-September I predicted a Bush victory, with 53% of the popular vote. Events over the past month prompt me to revise that down to 52%, still enough to provide a sizable majority in the Electoral College.

But Kerry could, of course, still pull this thing off—although he is nonetheless exceedingly unlikely to break the 50% popular vote barrier. At this point I put the odds of a big Bush win, a narrow Kerry win, and a narrow Bush win at 5:3:2, respectively.

The next twelve days cannot pass soon enough.