Electoral Vote Predictor 2004.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Wow, that's almost as bad as the stereotyping as everyone in California as a hippie, gay, ganster, or idiot. Or a mix. And, of course, always out of touch with the American mainstream.

That's stereotyping?...

No KKK, that's the truth, Ruth

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So now PA is "leaning Bush" when it was "strong Kerry"?

 

This is why I try not to pay attention to any of this crap...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

That's the problem of using multiple polls and treating them as exact substitutes...they're not.

 

You can't just update a Reuters poll with a Zogby. Different biases.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Again, statistically speaking, the chances of a pool of likely voters being significantly biased against the population set of voters on Nov. 4th is miniscule.

 

Statistics are much better than opinions

So then, why the huge gap between Likely Voter and Registered Voter?

[Guest MikeSC]

Anyway it's moot because I took a look at the website again (www.electoral-vote.com) and now it has Kerry at 264 and Bush at 222. So nobody really has a win right now, but Kerry just needs to get Missouri or something else and he's got it. PA is now in his column at roughly the same numbers that Gore won it in 2000.

 

I was bewildered that Kerry was leading in TN, where I thought he'd be getting owned. Now he's getting owned.

 

I said it going in...Kerry needs to get SOMETHING in the south. Anything. Arkansas, Florida, whatever. He was shown leading barely in FL, though it was listed as a tie. Heh, basically I think if people simply fill out their ballot correctly this time Kerry will take FL.

 

Simply put, it's going to be close. I'll be chewing my nails the first Tuesday in Nov.

It all boils down to this. If Bush wins OH and FL, he DEFINITELY wins the White House. Kerry has to pick up one of them.

 

Kerry is, presently, down by 8 in OH and is trailing slightly in FL.

 

Throw in Bush's approval numbers being above 50% (and, sadly for Kerry, his people's strategy of attacking Bush's Guard service is not going to lower that whatsoever) and Kerry has a monumental problem.

-=Mike

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Again, statistically speaking, the chances of a pool of likely voters being significantly biased against the population set of voters on Nov. 4th is miniscule.

 

Statistics are much better than opinions

So then, why the huge gap between Likely Voter and Registered Voter?

Show me the gap and the confidence intervals surrounding.

[cabbageboy 0]

I will submit that Kerry doesn't HAVE to take either Ohio or Florida. It'd be nice, but in yesterday's poll he was winning with 264 electoral votes (now Bush I think is ahead 253-244).

 

The state that is truly bizarre is Missouri. Yesterday it was a dead heat and now Bush is up 55-41?? That's complete bullshit and even the guy writing on the site said so.

 

I'm telling you, the key state is Pennsylvania. Kerry 100% positively HAS to take that state. It's a state that Gore won in 2000 by 4%, and I think it'll eventually go that way this time. Note that Kerry would have 264 with PA on his side, and if he got basically anything else he'd win.

 

The last poll on that site had Kerry slightly leading (less than 1%) in FL, so I'm not sure what poll had him behind.

[Guest MikeSC]

I will submit that Kerry doesn't HAVE to take either Ohio or Florida.  It'd be nice, but in yesterday's poll he was winning with 264 electoral votes (now Bush I think is ahead 253-244). 

There is not a study of the election on Earth that indicates Kerry has a prayer without winning one of the two.

The state that is truly bizarre is Missouri.  Yesterday it was a dead heat and now Bush is up 55-41??  That's complete bullshit and even the guy writing on the site said so. 

 

I'm telling you, the key state is Pennsylvania.  Kerry 100% positively HAS to take that state.  It's a state that Gore won in 2000 by 4%, and I think it'll eventually go that way this time.  Note that Kerry would have 264 with PA on his side, and if he got basically anything else he'd win.

 

The last poll on that site had Kerry slightly leading (less than 1%) in FL, so I'm not sure what poll had him behind.

Strategic Vision has him down by 4. Miami Herald has him down by 2. Gallup has him down by 2.

 

Zogby is the only one with him leading --- and that is only by 0.3.

 

Kerry should be concerned that Bush is close in NJ and that CA is not nearly a runaway.

 

Also note that Kerry's ad buying seems to indicate that he isn't going after MO that hard. No ads, apparently have been purchased to air before October --- and the Oct. ads haven't actually been paid for.

-=Mike

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

I've read that the polls were largely in favor of Bush following the Conventions...

[cabbageboy 0]

Maybe the studies say Kerry can't win without either Ohio or Florida, but I'm telling you it is entirely possible. PA is the state Kerry should be really worried about (NJ and CA both will end up going for Kerry, he'd have to truly fuck up not to get both of those). Provided that board stays exactly the same and PA goes to Kerry, all he'd need is Colorado and he's got it.

 

In regards to FL, I don't know. If they use a legit ballot (as in no butterfly crap, dimpled chads, etc.) then I think Kerry can take the state likely by that 0.3 margin. It isn't likely that Nader will get the kind of support he did in 2000 anyway, where he cost Gore some votes.

[Guest MikeSC]

Maybe the studies say Kerry can't win without either Ohio or Florida, but I'm telling you it is entirely possible.

It is quite "possible". It also HIGHLY unlikely. Bush CAN win without FL --- but it's not a terribly strong possibility.

PA is the state Kerry should be really worried about (NJ and CA both will end up going for Kerry, he'd have to truly fuck up not to get both of those).  Provided that board stays exactly the same and PA goes to Kerry, all he'd need is Colorado and he's got it. 

He's losing support quickly and it's only getting uglier. His campaign is progeressively looking less and less serious.

In regards to FL, I don't know.  If they use a legit ballot (as in no butterfly crap, dimpled chads, etc.)

It was a very legit ballot.

then I think Kerry can take the state likely by that 0.3 margin.  It isn't likely that Nader will get the kind of support he did in 2000 anyway, where he cost Gore some votes.

Not to worry. A Democratic judge in FL DQ'd Nader from the ballot.

 

No chance of a FL judge playing politics.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Zogby says the race is much closer than Newsweek would make you think. CBS and WashPost polls speculate 7-9 points.

[Justice 0]

Zogby says the race is much closer than Newsweek would make you think. CBS and WashPost polls speculate 7-9 points.

Huh. They sort of incorrectly cited the Gallup polls, since it puts the race at 52-45, which is more than a 1-point lead.

 

Frankly, I think that Zogby is the one who is wrong here rather than what seems like every other polling service. I mean, other services are already putting Bush in the lead of enough swing states to win as long as he gets Florida.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Rasmussen also has Bush at +1-3. It's not every polling service, it's just the ones that don't do a daily tracking poll. Zogby and Rasmussen do; they're able to more accurately record the trends in the race than the weekly ones (especially Newsweek and Time, both of whom used flawed methodology).

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Again, nobody actually uses Likely Voter as the be-all end-all unless they're just wanting to do some Bush ass-kissing.

[Justice 0]

Rasmussen also has Bush at +1-3. It's not every polling service, it's just the ones that don't do a daily tracking poll. Zogby and Rasmussen do; they're able to more accurately record the trends in the race than the weekly ones (especially Newsweek and Time, both of whom used flawed methodology).

But again, Gallup is reporting more of a bump in many states than Zogby is. I'm already questioning the sudden 12 lead that Kerry gained in NM for apparently doing nothing there.

[Justice 0]

Again, nobody actually uses Likely Voter as the be-all end-all unless they're just wanting to do some Bush ass-kissing.

Of course, when it's Kerry that's in the lead...

 

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Gallup isn't doing a daily tracking poll, either.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Of course, when it's Kerry that's in the lead...

 

What can I say? I've spent the past two hours arguing with people who believe that this is an accurate poll. My tolerance for "Kerry is doomed Bush iz gonna win" people is incredibly low right now.

 

I'll be better up for arguing poll symantecs later. Right now, I just wish I lived in a time when you could challenge another man to a duel.

[Justice 0]

Tyler, just because they are doing daily tracking polls doesn't make me trust them any more. My electoral politics class taught me that dailies tend to be the most inaccurate of them all, so I don't see why you'd think that as an advantage.

 

JotW:

 

Likely Voters is a pretty stupid poll because it only counts people who voted in the last election.

 

From CNN:

 

The Ohio survey of 794 registered voters, including 661 who indicated they were likely to vote, was conducted Saturday through Tuesday.

 

It's who says that they're likely to vote, not who just voted in the last election. Why is the "Likely Voter" poll crap?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well then, I give the Newsweek poll more credit than before.

 

The Time/CNN/Gallup poll is shit, though. They polled almost 125% as many Republicans as they did Democrats and Independents (seperately)

[Justice 0]

Well then, I give the Newsweek poll more credit than before.

Huh?

 

You mean CNN/Gallup, which is the one that shows the 7 point lead.

 

And I'll agree with you on Time/Newsweek, since a 10/12 point lead is obscene to think of right now.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's what I meant, I fucked up. Sorry.

 

Newsweek:

374 Republicans +/- 6

303 Democrats +/- 6

300 Independents +/- 6

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Tyler, just because they are doing daily tracking polls doesn't make me trust them any more. My electoral politics class taught me that dailies tend to be the most inaccurate of them all, so I don't see why you'd think that as an advantage.

 

That's a matter of opinion, not of fact. The dailies tracking up to the Democratic primaries proved to be, by far, the most accurate. Rasmussen and Zogby in particular almost nailed the exact figures of several primaries in their tracking polls. This was also when Gallup was doing a daily for Iowa and NH.

[Justice 0]

Tyler, just because they are doing daily tracking polls doesn't make me trust them any more. My electoral politics class taught me that dailies tend to be the most inaccurate of them all, so I don't see why you'd think that as an advantage.

 

That's a matter of opinion, not of fact. The dailies tracking up to the Democratic primaries proved to be, by far, the most accurate. Rasmussen and Zogby in particular almost nailed the exact figures of several primaries in their tracking polls. This was also when Gallup was doing a daily for Iowa and NH.

Well, Myron Levine is a guy who is regularly on C-SPAN discussing Electoral politics, so I think I'll take his word for it.

 

Primaries are a bit easier since you are only looking inside of one group, as well. Again, I don't trust dailies as much because I've had it laid out to me how inaccurate they can be, and frankly, it's not hard to see why: they have to be done fast and they can't always be done with a proper sample. Allow me to take the one that isn't shot out in the interests of time.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Nonetheless, your bias against dailies --- and his --- is based on sampling/methodology of 4 years ago. These polls have changed since then, and we'll only know how accurate they are after the election.

 

As we've seen with the Newsweek/Time polls, the weeklies aren't exactly the cream-of-the-crop when it comes to polls, either. Our best gauge --- if your bias is against dailies --- then is the outlets like SUSA or Quinnipaq U and, perhaps, Gallup. But the former two haven't put out a poll since the convention (to my knowledge), so our views on which poll is an outlier are pretty much just speculation.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

JOTW

 

I can't imagine that the Time poll which sampled more republicans doesn't weight its results...You're assuming they're using simple statistics, which they don't. There's alot of background and science that we aren't aware of in polling

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/4/154842/1919

 

Directly addresses SJ.

[cabbageboy 0]

First off, I can't believe anyone would suggest that the various ballots in FL were all totally legit. I mean, there were thousands of people who ended up voting for Pat Buchanan by accident. Hell, I took a look at the butterfly ballot and it took me a couple of looks to make sure of where Gore was in relation to Buchanan.

 

You know another state that is more key that people think? New Hampshire. I took a closer look at those 2000 results and do you realize if NH simply went for Gore the whole FL fiasco would have been moot. Kerry is leading in NH right now by about 5% I think.

 

I also looked at the projected final votes and it was really bizarre. They had Kerry winning TN and OK. I might see TN, given that Kerry was leading in 1 poll by 2% the other day (now he's down 10+%). But OK? Kerry has been consistently down almost 20% there. No clue as to why he would win that.

 

Assuming that Kerry does in fact lose both FL and OH, his margin for error is VERY thin at that point. He'd have to get everything else that Gore got plus NH. Which brings me back to Pennsylvania...Kerry has to win that state. I'll be checking the polls for PA regularly.

[Guest MikeSC]

First off, I can't believe anyone would suggest that the various ballots in FL were all totally legit.  I mean, there were thousands of people who ended up voting for Pat Buchanan by accident. 

.

Says who?

 

Sad thing is, the counties in question did not even have the highest rate of spolied ballots in the state of FL.

Hell, I took a look at the butterfly ballot and it took me a couple of looks to make sure of where Gore was in relation to Buchanan

Then, no offense, you have no business voting in the first place. If following the arrows is too much for you, don't vote.

You know another state that is more key that people think?  New Hampshire.  I took a closer look at those 2000 results and do you realize if NH simply went for Gore the whole FL fiasco would have been moot.  Kerry is leading in NH right now by about 5% I think. 

Did you know that the INTERNAL numbers are actually worse for Kerry than the main ones? Bush leads him in EVERY issue, except health care, job creation, and helping the middle class (and only losing in those by no more than 5). Hell, Bush is ahead of Kerry in "relations with other countries".

 

ALSO, Kerry's approval numbers are negative now (36% approve, 42% disapprove)

Assuming that Kerry does in fact lose both FL and OH, his margin for error is VERY thin at that point.  He'd have to get everything else that Gore got plus NH.  Which brings me back to Pennsylvania...Kerry has to win that state.  I'll be checking the polls for PA regularly.

I'll say it now --- without those 2 states, he's dead.

-=Mike