Electoral Vote Predictor 2004.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Just a somewhat off topic but somewhat ON topic question

 

 

What state is the most crucial state? (obviously, California and NY are the big ones) but which state is "the" state to get?

 

Meaning, Like Florida of 2000, which state(s) will make or break the election?

Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio seem to be the toss up states.

 

There's rumblings in the conservative circles (talk radio and sites like wnd.com and newsmax.com) that the core conservative base (guys like me) is indeed pissed at Bush and may very well either A) stay home on election day or B) vote for the libertarian or some other 3rd party guy. Bush's team seems to think that the Iraq war will be enough to keep the conervatives "happy."

 

I think Bush is in deep trouble as he has nothing to gain. In order for him to win, he has to hold onto every one of those little red states that put him into office last time. The fact is, he's more likely to lose those states to Kerry than he is to steal one of the medium sized blue states that went to Gore in 2000. Bush needs to realize that voter apathy in the conservative block is for real this time.

What good would that do?

[Vyce 0]

Just a somewhat off topic but somewhat ON topic question

 

 

What state is the most crucial state? (obviously, California and NY are the big ones) but which state is "the" state to get?

 

Meaning, Like Florida of 2000, which state(s) will make or break the election?

Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio seem to be the toss up states.

 

There's rumblings in the conservative circles (talk radio and sites like wnd.com and newsmax.com) that the core conservative base (guys like me) is indeed pissed at Bush and may very well either A) stay home on election day or B) vote for the libertarian or some other 3rd party guy. Bush's team seems to think that the Iraq war will be enough to keep the conervatives "happy."

 

I think Bush is in deep trouble as he has nothing to gain. In order for him to win, he has to hold onto every one of those little red states that put him into office last time. The fact is, he's more likely to lose those states to Kerry than he is to steal one of the medium sized blue states that went to Gore in 2000. Bush needs to realize that voter apathy in the conservative block is for real this time.

What good would that do?

I don't see it really happening.

 

If the Dems had put forth a truly moderate candidate, I could see it happening - but honestly, are hardcore conservatives (and that's who frequents sites like newsmax), who are apparently upset at Bush for not being conservative ENOUGH, going to just sit back in November and let John Kerry, a man who (if you say nothing else about him) is certainly a good deal LESS conservative than George W. Bush (I'm being careful here not use the dreaded "l-word"), win the election? I don't think so.

 

I think both parties WILL firmly have their base intact. The election will depend, as usual, on the fabled swing voters.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

There's something that I don't understand about the electoral process: it seems that the way it works in most states is that whoever wins the agregate popular vote for that state is given the totatlity of the electoral votes for that state, regardless of how the votes actually broke down in each respective electoral district.

 

This seems to me to be the exact opposite of the way that the electoral process should work, so why is it done that way?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

There's something that I don't understand about the electoral process: it seems that the way it works in most states is that whoever wins the agregate popular vote for that state is given the totatlity of the electoral votes for that state, regardless of how the votes actually broke down in each respective electoral district.

 

This seems to me to be the exact opposite of the way that the electoral process should work, so why is it done that way?

Because the point of the electoral college is to make sure rinky-dink states have a voice, too. Republicans in particular are big fans of this, because if you ever lookat the election map there seems to be acres of red, each state an easily-forgotten one that only has a few electoral votes. But, when put together, are a better ace in the pocket than the Democrats winning the states where most of America is gathered.

[teke184 0]

There's something that I don't understand about the electoral process: it seems that the way it works in most states is that whoever wins the agregate popular vote for that state is given the totatlity of the electoral votes for that state, regardless of how the votes actually broke down in each respective electoral district.

 

This seems to me to be the exact opposite of the way that the electoral process should work, so why is it done that way?

Because the point of the electoral college is to make sure rinky-dink states have a voice, too. Republicans in particular are big fans of this, because if you ever lookat the election map there seems to be acres of red, each state an easily-forgotten one that only has a few electoral votes. But, when put together, are a better ace in the pocket than the Democrats winning the states where most of America is gathered.

IMHO, the system is good as it is because 90% of the US is pissed off about people in New York and California referring to us as "flyover country", as Alec Baldwin did during the Democratic Convention.

 

Elitist comments like that make me glad that someone can't just campaign in about 10 major cities and win the election. If it were the case, the only places that the Dems would bother campaigning in are places that tend to have long-standing political "machines" in place like New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco.

[jesse_ewiak 0]

Actually, San Fran really doesn't have a machine. Yeah, there's a powerful Democratic Party, but that's mostly because conservatives think its Sodom and Gamorrah all rolled into one and has since the late 50's. I mean, the two biggest contenders were a Democrat and Green for Christ sakes.

[teke184 0]

Actually, San Fran really doesn't have a machine. Yeah, there's a powerful Democratic Party, but that's mostly because conservatives think its Sodom and Gamorrah all rolled into one and has since the late 50's. I mean, the two biggest contenders were a Democrat and Green for Christ sakes.

San Fran is notorious for voter fraud and election irregularities, although there may not be a machine in the sense of Boss Tweed of New York or Richard Daley of Chicago.

 

It's not uncommon to find ballot-boxes floating in the Bay, which is why a city elections official was supposed to be fired in the past year but was kept on because her "lifemate" was in the middle of a sex-change procedure. (SF is, BTW, one of the only cities to offer that particular operation as a part of a city medical plan)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

IMHO, the system is good as it is because 90% of the US is pissed off about people in New York and California referring to us as "flyover country", as Alec Baldwin did during the Democratic Convention.

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.

 

Nevermind that 1 in every 7 Americans is a Californian.

[Guest MikeSC]

IMHO, the system is good as it is because 90% of the US is pissed off about people in New York and California referring to us as "flyover country", as Alec Baldwin did during the Democratic Convention.

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.

 

Nevermind that 1 in every 7 Americans is a Californian.

Yeah, NOBODY else matters if they're not from CA or NY. The rest of us plebes should just shut up and thank God you allow us to share your landmass.

-=Mike

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

There's something that I don't understand about the electoral process: it seems that the way it works in most states is that whoever wins the agregate popular vote for that state is given the totatlity of the electoral votes for that state, regardless of how the votes actually broke down in each respective electoral district.

 

This seems to me to be the exact opposite of the way that the electoral process should work, so why is it done that way?

Because the point of the electoral college is to make sure rinky-dink states have a voice, too. Republicans in particular are big fans of this, because if you ever lookat the election map there seems to be acres of red, each state an easily-forgotten one that only has a few electoral votes. But, when put together, are a better ace in the pocket than the Democrats winning the states where most of America is gathered.

Actually, what I meant was something more like this:

 

Colorado, for example, has nine electoral districts. My understanding of the way the electoral process should work (and this may just be my idyllic fantasy), is that each electorate would vote for whoever won the popular vote in their respective districts. Meaning that if Kerry won the popular vote in districts 1,2,6,7 and 9, and Bush won the popular vote in districts 3,4,5 and 8, then Kerry would get five of Colorado's electoral votes, and Bush would get the other four.

 

But instead of working that way (which, it seems to me, would be much more like the representative republic that the United States is supposed to be than whatever it actually is), the way that things work nowadays in most states is that Kerry would probably be given all nine of Colorado's electoral votes, which essentially invalidates all of the votes of the people in all of the districts that didn't vote for Kerry.

 

So why is it done that way?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Seeing how this chart has PA in the solid blue throws away all credibility for me. I could understand the light blue, but not solid...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The reason why the electoral votes are split stems from our the writers of our constitution envisioned the party system. They didnt want a coalitional governing system because those are more unstable.

[CBright7831 0]

 

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004:

Kerry - 247

Bush - 275

 

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Guest MikeSC]

There's something that I don't understand about the electoral process: it seems that the way it works in most states is that whoever wins the agregate popular vote for that state is given the totatlity of the electoral votes for that state, regardless of how the votes actually broke down in each respective electoral district.

 

This seems to me to be the exact opposite of the way that the electoral process should work, so why is it done that way?

Because the point of the electoral college is to make sure rinky-dink states have a voice, too. Republicans in particular are big fans of this, because if you ever lookat the election map there seems to be acres of red, each state an easily-forgotten one that only has a few electoral votes. But, when put together, are a better ace in the pocket than the Democrats winning the states where most of America is gathered.

Actually, what I meant was something more like this:

 

Colorado, for example, has nine electoral districts. My understanding of the way the electoral process should work (and this may just be my idyllic fantasy), is that each electorate would vote for whoever won the popular vote in their respective districts. Meaning that if Kerry won the popular vote in districts 1,2,6,7 and 9, and Bush won the popular vote in districts 3,4,5 and 8, then Kerry would get five of Colorado's electoral votes, and Bush would get the other four.

 

But instead of working that way (which, it seems to me, would be much more like the representative republic that the United States is supposed to be than whatever it actually is), the way that things work nowadays in most states is that Kerry would probably be given all nine of Colorado's electoral votes, which essentially invalidates all of the votes of the people in all of the districts that didn't vote for Kerry.

 

So why is it done that way?

Because, if you start splitting up the votes of small states, the candidates REALLY have no interest in campaigning there as the vote pick-up isn't worth the effort.

-=Mike

[cabbageboy 0]

I took a look at that new electoral map and it's quite interesting. Bush's big bounce is basically little more than him further smoking Kerry in states that Kerry wasn't going to win anyway. As in who cares if Kerry loses Mississippi 55-43 or 65-33?

 

The key to this election is not FL or even OH...it's PA. Bush was up by 1% on that recent poll in PA and that gave him the deciding 20 electoral votes to get to 275. PA is historically more Democratic in presidential elections, and Kerry can certainly take that state. If that happens shift 20 electoral votes and it's like Kerry 257, Bush 255. Thus it comes down to MN, IA, and CO.

 

So really these polls that have Bush up 11% are really pretty ridiculous if you look at how up in the air the actual electoral map is.

[Justice 0]

I took a look at that new electoral map and it's quite interesting. Bush's big bounce is basically little more than him further smoking Kerry in states that Kerry wasn't going to win anyway. As in who cares if Kerry loses Mississippi 55-43 or 65-33?

That's not true. He's lost ground in MI and a few other battleground states. The biggest one is probably Minnesota, which is split dead even right now when it should be strongly Kerry. He's gained ground across the board, pretty much.

[teke184 0]

Major recent changes:

 

New Mexico went from a fairly strong Kerry state in mid-August (Kerry 50 to 42) to a Bush-leaning state (Bush 45 to 41)

 

Florida went from a weak Bush lead (Bush 46, Kerry 45) to a decent Bush lead (Bush 48, Kerry 44)

 

Missouri went from a tie (49% each) to a Bush lead (Bush 49, Kerry 45)

 

Pennsylvania went from a strong Kerry lead (Kerry 53, Bush 44) to a slim Bush lead (Bush 47, Kerry 46)

 

Minnesota, Iowa, and Colorado are all now tied. These were leaning Kerry recently.

 

Bush made big gains in New Jersey but doesn't appear to have a chance. (It went from Kerry 47, Bush 38 to Kerry 50, Bush 46)

 

Kerry has taken the lead in Tennesee, which was a tie until recently.

 

Wisconsin is pratically a tie, although Kerry had 52% there recently.

 

 

In addition, this is what the Webmaster has to say:

 

"We have four new polls today, one of them significant. Bush and Kerry are now tied in Minnesota. This is bad news for Kerry. He should have been way ahead there. It is now clear that July was a good month for Kerry. He led the entire month. August has been a good month for Bush. He is definitely ahead now. No two ways about it. The other polls are in California, Michigan, and New Jersey, all of which still show Kerry in front."

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

What I've learned from this site is that, shockingly, the difference in every single state that anyone thought might have a chance of going either way is still in the margin of error 2 months before the election.

 

Someone wake me on November 3 when the numbers are actually something close to definitive.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

These things run on polls, which are.. Well, wonky.

 

Gallup finally did a post-convention poll that shows the convention bounce was 2 points. Normally I'd suggest Gallup generally favors the Republican but perhaps this time they were, well, conservative about it.

[Justice 0]

These things run on polls, which are.. Well, wonky.

 

Gallup finally did a post-convention poll that shows the convention bounce was 2 points. Normally I'd suggest Gallup generally favors the Republican but perhaps this time they were, well, conservative about it.

... that's a 7 point lead, and a 4 point boost. That's substantial, dude.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

National Adults

2004 Sep 3-5 47 49 * 2 2

 

2 points.

[Justice 0]

National Adults

2004 Sep 3-5  47  49  *  2  2

 

2 points.

Likely Voters:

September 3-5: 52-45

August 23-25: 50-47

 

7 points.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

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

[Justice 0]

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

Perhaps because they are, well, the most likely to continue voting? Not all adults vote, you know.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Except turnout was expeptionally low in 2000. People bitched that "they're the same guy" and basically things were much less divisive than they are now. The most popular view in 2000 seemed to be "politicians are scumsuckers, forget it, I'm not voting for either guy."

 

Also, you aren't counting people young and old who registered to vote because they're angry with how Bush has handled things.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

If likely voters was a stupid poll, then why do the news agencies use them?

 

Seriously JOTW, I'll break it down like this, using my graduate degree superpowers.

 

There's this thing called the CLT (Central Limit Theorem) which says that as long as our sample size reaches a critical mass and is relatively unbiased, adding observations will not change statistical outcomes. A survey of likely voters is both large enough and unbiased enough to qualify. That's why they use it.

 

You will always have people entering the voting market. There will also be people exiting (umm, death?) I'm willing to bet that the influx of new voters is partially offset by the deaths in America in the last four years (and I'll also assumed that those who died are more likely Democrat).

 

1994 and 1996 were divisive elections, yet no one in the public realm seemed to accused the polls of inordinate sampling bias. Hell, with our confidence intervals surrounding the estimates, we really make ourselves certain.

 

The general trend for participation in US Presidential elections has tended downward over time. As an economist, I would say people are more valuing that they spend their time doing something else besides voting. I really don't expect this trend to reverse. You can cry "But the Bush hatred!" all day, but its nothing other elections in our past haven't had.

 

In short, a survey of likely voters is a damn good measure. If you care to challenge that, I suggest reading a book on statistics first.

 

This has been your not-so-friendly-today-because-he's-pissed-off economist.

[cabbageboy 0]

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.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If likely voters was a stupid poll, then why do the news agencies use them?

Likely Voters isn't a bad poll most of the time. However, when international tension is high very shortly after an election where most people, even registered politically active people like me, just didn't give a shit about either guy, it's not a very good tool.

 

It's not "But the Bush hate!" It's the national non-interest of the 2000 election, followed by this election which has had more buzz than the return of Christ.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

No JOTW, even with the tension, its still a good sample.

 

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

[kkktookmybabyaway 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?...