Electoral Vote Predictor 2004.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

and when it comes to E-V.com.. I question how a site could mix up the DC and Deleware poll numbers. Basically E-V does throw a lot of stuff out there

[Justice 0]

One of the more "funny in a desperate sort of way" suggestions:

 

A reader pointed out to me a possible systematic bias in the Florida polls related to the travel patterns of migratory birds. Snowbirds. A lot of New Yorkers have condos in Florida and spend summers in New York and winters in Florida. Some of them are registered to vote in Florida and do not yet show up in the Florida polls. But a large majority will vote Democratic. It might be an overlooked factor. On the other hand, the effect of the hurricanes may be even larger.

 

Seriously, I respect the polling stuff, but the guy lacks some reality.

[CBright7831 0]

 

Kerry: 221

Bush: 276

 

If I were Bush, I would be worried.

[teke184 0]

You're fucking kidding me, right?

 

 

There are currently 106 Electoral Votes still seriously in play (leaning Kerry, leaning Bush, or tied).

 

 

Of those, Michigan had been somewhat solidly in Kerry's column until the past few days. Minnesota and New Jersey are traditional Democrat strongholds that are within a few percent of going for Bush. Oregon and Washington contain some of the FAR left and THEY are both within a point or two of going for Bush.

 

 

 

In order for Kerry to win, he'd need to keep his leads in Washington, Oregon, Maine, New Jersey, and Minnesota. He'd also have to take the currently-tied states of Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, and a Bush-leaning state worth 6 or more electoral votes such as Iowa.

 

All Bush needs to do in order to win is to keep what he's got now and get Kerry to spend all of his resources to keep states like Minnesota and New Jersey in his column.

[bob_barron 0]

RCP has it Bush 291-200

[cabbageboy 0]

Keep in mind these are mostly pre debate polls that are being used here. I almost can guarrantee you that once the new post debate polls come out Kerry will fare better.

 

Let me take a look at what Teke had to say:

 

"In order for Kerry to win, he'd need to keep his leads in Washington, Oregon, Maine, New Jersey, and Minnesota. He'd also have to take the currently-tied states of Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, and a Bush-leaning state worth 6 or more electoral votes such as Iowa."

 

Washington and Oregon aren't even really swing states. I have yet to hear anyone who would suggest Bush will take those. NJ is closer than 2000 but Bush won't win it by any means. Minnesota is a close state but the easiest of the 3 in that area (WI and IA being the others). Also Michigan isn't tied at all in reality (Kerry is up by about 5-6 there). As far as NH goes, Bush won that state mainly due to Nader getting 3.6% in 2000, which he won't do again.

 

In addition, FL isn't remotely for Bush by this margin...bear in mind that is the Gallup poll this site is quoting and it's ludicrously oversampling Republicans. Rasmussen and Zogby basically have that state as a tie, with either man getting a 1% lead. Ohio is a complete tossup, one of the few in the election where I don't think anyone has a clue what will happen.

 

There are some other states here that don't look right either. NM for instance. This poll has Bush up 47-43 there, but he lost that state in 2000 by like .1%. Nader isn't on the ballot in NM this time, so I think Kerry will win that state by a bit more than Gore did.

 

Also, Wisconsin and Iowa were two other states that Gore won in 2000 that could really go either way. Keep in mind that these states as well were both so close due to Nader getting 3.6 in WI (not sure what he got exactly in WI but I'd say about 3%). Nader isn't going to get that sort of support this time, and I think people tend to view this election as though he'll get exactly what he did in 2000. Thus, Bush would have to seriously increase his amount of support in those states.

 

Anyway, this map as it currently stands is meaningless since it's using pre debate info. I'm waiting to see what the new polls on Monday (Rasmussen, Zogby) say.

 

I'll say this: If the new Gallup comes out and Bush is winning by less than 5% in it, he should start worrying.

[Guest MikeSC]

Keep in mind these are mostly pre debate polls that are being used here. I almost can guarrantee you that once the new post debate polls come out Kerry will fare better.

I will assure you that Kerry's improvement in the polls, if at all, will not be terribly impressive.

Let me take a look at what Teke had to say:

 

"In order for Kerry to win, he'd need to keep his leads in Washington, Oregon, Maine, New Jersey, and Minnesota. He'd also have to take the currently-tied states of Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, and a Bush-leaning state worth 6 or more electoral votes such as Iowa."

 

Washington and Oregon aren't even really swing states.  I have yet to hear anyone who would suggest Bush will take those.  NJ is closer than 2000 but Bush won't win it by any means.  Minnesota is a close state but the easiest of the 3 in that area (WI and IA being the others).  Also Michigan isn't tied at all in reality (Kerry is up by about 5-6 there).  As far as NH goes, Bush won that state mainly due to Nader getting 3.6% in 2000, which he won't do again. 

The fact that WA and OR are close means Kerry has to spend money he didn't expect to, which throws off a lot of his election strategy. Ditto NJ. And MI is a virtual dead heat (RCP's average has Kerry up by 0.5). In fact, no poll on RCP has Kerry up by more than 2 there.

In addition, FL isn't remotely for Bush by this margin...bear in mind that is the Gallup poll this site is quoting and it's ludicrously oversampling Republicans.  Rasmussen and Zogby basically have that state as a tie, with either man getting a 1% lead.  Ohio is a complete tossup, one of the few in the election where I don't think anyone has a clue what will happen.

Wow, way to completely get all of this wrong.

 

RCP avg: FL --- Bush up by 5.4

OH --- Bush up by 2.6.

 

I know, you want to live in this fantasy world where Gallup is just a partisan tool (which won't really explain how Kerry did well in the post-debate poll there), but, say, Zogby isn't.

There are some other states here that don't look right either.  NM for instance.  This poll has Bush up 47-43 there, but he lost that state in 2000 by like .1%.  Nader isn't on the ballot in NM this time, so I think Kerry will win that state by a bit more than Gore did.

So, your problem with NM is that just because Gore won by less than a point, Kerry should win by more? No ACTUAL problem, just that.

Also, Wisconsin and Iowa were two other states that Gore won in 2000 that could really go either way.

Except Bush leads in every IA and WI poll I've seen. And quite comfortably in every IA poll and pretty well in WI.

Keep in mind that these states as well were both so close due to Nader getting 3.6 in WI (not sure what he got exactly in WI but I'd say about 3%).  Nader isn't going to get that sort of support this time, and I think people tend to view this election as though he'll get exactly what he did in 2000.  Thus, Bush would have to seriously increase his amount of support in those states.

Hate to break it to you, but Kerry STILL isn't beloved by the Democratic base. Since Bush is LEADING, it makes a bit more sense that Kerry might want to increase his support.

 

Just an idea.

Anyway, this map as it currently stands is meaningless since it's using pre debate info.  I'm waiting to see what the new polls on Monday (Rasmussen, Zogby) say.

 

I'll say this:  If the new Gallup comes out and Bush is winning by less than 5% in it, he should start worrying.

Because Gallup is such a tool for the RNC, while Zogby is TOTALLY independent of any Kerry support.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I understand the arguement that there's so few undecideds already that the debates won't change much, but the Republicans who are arguing this haven't recognized that the results looked different before their convention, and there were few undecideds then, too.

[Guest MikeSC]

I understand the arguement that there's so few undecideds already that the debates won't change much, but the Republicans who are arguing this haven't recognized that the results looked different before their convention, and there were few undecideds then, too.

The only people saying that there is a lack of undecideds are Dems. The GOP Convention showed that there are some undecideds, as they tended to swing to Bush.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Gallup is so non-biased.. since 39 out of every 100 voters they sample is a Republican.

 

Misc. Poll news: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1nw.htm

 

NEWSWEEK POLL: BUSH LEAD GONE

Sat Oct 02 2004 16:42:32 ET

 

New York-Sixty-one percent of Americans who watched the first presidential debate on September 30 say Sen. John Kerry won; 19 percent say President George W. Bush won and 16 percent say they tied, according to the latest Newsweek Poll which was conducted after the debate ended. Fifty-six percent say Kerry did better than they expected; 11 percent say so for Bush. Thirty-eight percent say Bush did worse than expected;  3 percent say so for Kerry, the poll shows.

 

The debate erased the lead the Bush/Cheney ticket has held over Kerry/Edwards in the Newsweek Poll since the Republican convention. In a three-way trial heat including Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo, among registered voters Kerry/Edwards leads Bush/Cheney 47 percent v. 45 percent with 2 percent for Nader/Camejo. In a two-way heat, Kerry/Edwards leads 49 percent v. 46 percent for Bush/Cheney, the poll shows.

 

        A 62-percent majority of viewers says Kerry seemed more confident and self-assured (26% say so for Bush) and 51 percent say Kerry had better command of issues and facts (37% for Bush). Forty-seven percent say Kerry seemed more personally likeable (41 % for Bush) and 49 percent say Kerry came closer to reflecting their own views on most foreign policy issues (43% for Bush). The two were nearly even on several other points, including who came across as a strong leader (47% Kerry, 44% Bush) and who had a better plan for dealing with the situation in Iraq (45% for both). Forty percent of viewers thought Kerry was too wordy and 57 percent thought Bush was too repetitive.

 

        Fifty-seven percent of all poll respondents say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time. Bush's job approval rating dropped two points from the Sept. 9-10 Newsweek Poll to 46 percent-a 6-point drop since the poll taken during and after the Republican convention. Forty-eight percent of registered voters polled say they would not like to see Bush re-elected but almost as many (46%) say they would.

 

        Among registered voters, 60 percent say they know "a lot" about what Bush stands for, compared to 38 percent who say so about Kerry, the poll shows.

 

        During the debate, President Bush said the military would remain "an all-volunteer army," but if Bush is re-elected, 38 percent of registered voters say the draft is likely to be reinstated; 51 percent say it's not, according to the poll.  If Kerry is elected president, 18 percent say the draft is likely to be reinstated; 67 percent say it is not. And 62 percent of registered voters say reinstating the draft should not be considered at this time; 28 percent say it should be considered.

 

        A 60-percent majority of registered voters say Bush administration policies and diplomatic efforts have led to more anti-Americanism around the world and 51 percent say the administration has not done enough to involve major allies and international organizations in trying to achieve its foreign policy goals, the poll shows. 

 

        As for who will handle issues better overall, among registered voters Bush leads Kerry 52 to 40 percent on terrorism and homeland security; the situation in Iraq (49% vs. 44%); the situation involving Israel and the Palestinians (46% vs. 39%) and controlling the spread of nuclear weapons (47% v. 43%). Kerry scores better on the economy (52% vs. 39%);  health care, including Medicare (56% to 34%) and American jobs and foreign competition (54% vs. 36%), the poll shows.

 

        Overall, 62 percent say Bush has strong leadership qualities (compared to 56% who say so for Kerry).  Sixty-six percent say Bush says what he believes, not just what people want to hear, compared to 48 percent for Kerry. Sixty-five percent say Bush is personally likeable (63% say so for Kerry). But more registered voters (57%) say Kerry is honest and ethical (vs. 55% for Bush); the same amount (51%) says they would trust Kerry to make the right decisions during an international crisis as would trust Bush (51%); and more (57%) say Kerry cares about people like them (vs. 49% for Bush). And 80 percent of registered voters say Kerry is intelligent and well informed, compared to 59 percent for Bush.

 

        On Iraq, 50 percent of registered voters polled say the war in Iraq was not necessary; 46 percent say it was. And 55 percent of registered voters say going to war in Iraq has not made Americans safer from terrorism; 41 percent say it has. Fifty-one percent of registered voters say the Bush administration misinterpreted or misanalyzed the intelligence reports it said indicated Iraq had banned weapons; 41 percent say it didn't. And 45 percent say the administration purposely misled the public about evidence that Iraq had banned weapons in order to build support for the war; 50 percent say it did not. 

 

        During is 19-year career in the U.S. Senate, Kerry  has changed his position on a number of issues. From what they know about Kerry, 47 percent of registered voters say this is because Kerry is thoughtful and changes position as circumstances change or he learns more about an issue; the same number (47%) say it's because Kerry is politically-motivated and changes his position when he thinks it will improve his image or help him win an election.

 

        For this Newsweek Poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates International interviewed 1,013 registered voters on Sept. 30-Oct. 2, 2004.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Newsweek's sample was 35% Republican, 37% Democrat, 28% Independent

 

which induced whining since it varied from the last Newsweek poll's sample which was

 

40% Republican, 31% Democrat, 28% Independent

 

Damn you Newsweek.. for stacking the deck for Kerry.. by not polling 2 Republicans out of every 5 respondents.

 

*shakes fist*

[Guest MikeSC]

Newsweek's sample was 35% Republican, 37% Democrat, 28% Independent

 

which induced whining since it varied from the last Newsweek poll's sample which was

 

40% Republican, 31% Democrat, 28% Independent

 

Damn you Newsweek.. for stacking the deck for Kerry.. by not polling 2 Republicans out of every 5 respondents.

 

*shakes fist*

You mean adding Democrats and subtracting Republicans might possibly CHANGE THE RESULTS OF THE POLL?

 

I'M SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I TELL YOU!

 

Did anybody NOT see the MSM preparing to do a wealth of stories about Kerry's "comeback" this month, come hell or high water? They just needed to play with the numbers to get the story more to their liking.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

they're so horrible for making the sample more realistic

 

So.. did the media oversample Republicans as part of this conspiracy?

[Guest MikeSC]

they're so horrible for making the sample more realistic

 

So.. did the media oversample Republicans as part of this conspiracy?

Can they explain why they changed their methodology so much?

 

If they cannot, why in the fuck should I bother even taking their poll seriously?

 

You, clearly, think Kerry is still losing -- or else you wouldn't have posted this. But, hey, go ahead and boost your spirits.

 

Kerry is STILL sucking eggs --- but a runaway election isn't fun for the news, so they want to make a competition where one does not exist.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Kerry is STILL sucking eggs --- but a runaway election isn't fun for the news, so they want to make a competition where one does not exist.

-=Mike

 

I liked the counter-statistics you provided. Maybe you have a fairly sampled poll that shows Bush ahead, or will you just talk out of your ass?

 

 

 

Don't know why I'm asking, but I just keep giving you the benefit of a doubt.

[Guest GreatOne]

Kerry is STILL sucking eggs --- but a runaway election isn't fun for the news, so they want to make a competition where one does not exist.

                  -=Mike

 

I liked the counter-statistics you provided. Maybe you have a fairly sampled poll that shows Bush ahead, or will you just talk out of your ass?

 

 

 

Don't know why I'm asking, but I just keep giving you the benefit of a doubt.

Doesn't matter, you'll still cry 'Republiconspiracy' like you always do.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Can they explain why they changed their methodology so much?

 

Maybe because they figured out that sampling 2 Republicans out of every 5 people is an inaccurate sample of America.

 

If they cannot, why in the fuck should I bother even taking their poll seriously?

 

You only seem to take polls seriously if they refuse to admit that oversampling Republicans is inaccurate.

 

You, clearly, think Kerry is still losing --- or else you wouldn't have posted this.

 

You're probably still witnessing the meltdown of John Kerry, which started almost 2 months ago.

 

Interesting how realistic samples don't show that Bush has a 12 point lead.

 

Very interesting..

 

But, hey, go ahead and boost your spirits.

 

I'll have to remember that line for use on you.

 

but a runaway election isn't fun for the news, so they want to make a competition where one does not exist.

 

 

"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of Washington. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly. We made them drink poison last night and George W. Bush's soldiers and his great forces gave the Democrats a lesson which will not be forgotten by history. Truly. My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all! Bush will win in a landslide"

 

"He's melting down. When he loses, you'll point to this also." - Mike, 8/21

 

"He's losing support quickly and it's only getting uglier. His campaign is progeressively looking less and less serious." - Mike, 9/9

 

"Somebody linked to intentionally planting stories to turn an election they're losing BADLY is worse than somebody covering up a 3rd rate burglary." - Mike, 9/21

 

"Blaming Gallup because Kerry is tanking is sad" - Mike, 9/29

 

"Kerry is STILL sucking eggs" - Mike, 10/2

 

MikeSC for President: "He doesn't shift in the wind, ever!"

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

The new Gallup results:

 

All post-debate sampling

 

LVs

Kerry  49

Bush   49

Nader   1

 

MoE = 4%

 

RVs

Kerry 47

Bush 49

Nader 1

 

Bush approval = 50%

Iraq 51/44 B/K

Economy 44/51 B/K

 

We'll have to see if they did the fair sample (40% Republicans) or the unfair evil sample (anything else.. they better not be sending mixed messeges)..

 

But if you're relying on Gallup.. then Kerry erased a 13 point deficit (in LV) in just two weeks. RV was 54-41 Bush a week ago, and it's now 49-47 Bush.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...atodaypolls.htm

 

But, I refuse to change my stance of "Gallup Sucks", especially not until we get the internals for this poll.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Do people seriously get paid good money to conclude that 50% of the people in the United States are Republican and 50% of them are Democrat?

[cabbageboy 0]

I too wondered about the sample used in that Gallup. When I saw that it's a tie in Gallup I was shocked quite honestly. If they did a more feasible sample, then these results make fairly good sense. Hell, if they just did an even sample of Rep/Dem then Bush has worries. And if they are still doing the goofy 39-40% Republican sample then Bush might have big worries. If Kerry is tied with that goofy Rep. sample, he'd actually be up by something like 7-9% if they used a sample similar to the last election.

 

As far as Zogby goes, yeah I realize he's a Democrat (while Rasmussen is a Republican). But one thing that can't be argued is that he's at least using a legit sample similar to 2000 turnout, and that can't be said of Gallup lately.

 

Here's the interesting thing about that Newsweek poll, if it's true they did 37% Dem, 35% Rep. In the last election Democrats were actually 39% to Republicans 35% (thus showing how even more insane it is to use 4-5% more Reps in these polls). So they might have undersampled Dems by 2% or so, in which case Kerry would be up 4-5%.

 

Here's an interesting look at the debate: www.americanresearchgroup.com

 

They have 2 panels there with similar results, and these aren't as bad for Bush as some of these post debate polls. Note that on avg. 7% of the Reps. polled thought Kerry won. 3% of Dems. thought Bush won. Now, Bush will likely get most of that 7% anyway in Nov. but just look at the startling gap in the independent voters. In panel 1 Kerry had a 19% margin with independents, 16% in panel 2. Mind you, I'm not totally sure what that will mean in terms of independent votes, but it's interesting. It'll be interesting to see what their final results are in terms of a real poll.

 

The next two debates will likely determine the winner. Or at least the last debate with the economy talk and all that....I doubt the "field questions from the crowd" debate will cause seismic shifts in the electorate.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Since when did ideas decide American elections.

 

Money will. I hate to be cynical, but it will. Advertising sways.

 

And please, calling these things debates is a shame to the word. We all know what a real debate is.

[snuffbox 0]

According to polls on this site...Kerry has now taken the lead in electoral votes...

 

Tonight's debate should be very important indeed.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

more state stuff

 

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002972.html

 

Gallup's Latest Polls In Three States May Undercount Kerry's Surge

Gallup released three state polls yesterday for CNN and USA Today. In all three key states, they reported that Kerry had closed the gap with Bush, with Bush holding three point leads over Kerry amongst likely voters in Wisconsin and New Mexico, and with Kerry and Bush tied in Colorado.

 

Yet when you look closely at the party ID of the likely voter samples that Gallup used in each state, you find that Gallup, once again, is basing its likely voter poll results on samples that when compared to the actual 2000 exit polls have a higher number of GOP respondents than may be warranted.

 

New Mexico

Poll Done October 3-6, 2004

673 Reported Likely Voters (LV), 669 Actual In Sample

Results:

Bush: 50%

Kerry: 47%

Nader: 2%

 

Party ID From LV Sample Per Gallup

Rep 258 (38%)

Ind 130 (19%)

Dem 281 (42%)

 

2000 Exit Poll Party ID

 

Dem: 43%

GOP: 32%

Ind: 25%

 

So the latest Gallup LV sample, which shows Bush ahead by 3% contains a 4% edge for Democrats when in 2000 the actual turnout edge for the Democrats on Election Day was 11%, nearly three times what Gallup built their poll on yesterday. If Gallup's LV sample from yesterday was recalibrated to more closely reflect the 2000 exit poll results, the purported 3% edge for Bush in yesterday's poll would disappear. Plus, note how Gallup undersampled Indies and oversampled GOP respondents in yesterday's LV results, when compared to the 2000 exit poll results.

 

Colorado

Poll Done October 3-6, 2004

667 Reported Likely Voters, 663 Actual in Sample

Results:

Bush: 49%

Kerry: 49%

Nader: 1%

 

Party ID From LV Sample Per Gallup

Rep 260 (39%)

Ind 198 (30%)

Dem 205 (31%)

 

2000 Exit Poll Party ID

 

Dem: 35%

GOP: 36%

Ind: 29%

 

Gallup yesterday said Bush and Kerry were tied, based on a LV sample that contained an 8% edge for the GOP. Yet in 2000, the exit polls showed only a 1% GOP edge. Therefore, if the Gallup LV sample from yesterday's poll was recalibrated to reflect the 2000 exit poll results, Kerry would be ahead in Colorado as well.

 

Wisconsin

Poll Done October 3-5, 2004

704 Reported Likely Voters, 694 Actual In Sample

Results:

Bush: 49%

Kerry: 46%

Nader: 2%

 

Party ID From LV Sample Per Gallup

Rep 246 (35%)

Ind 213 (30%)

Dem 235 (33%)

 

2000 Exit Poll Party ID

 

Dem: 37%

GOP: 32%

Ind: 31%

 

Again, Gallup yesterday reported that Bush was ahead of Kerry by 3% amongst likely voters by using a sample that had a 2% GOP edge. Yet in 2000, Democrats had a 5% edge over the GOP on Election Day. Based on that seven percent swing between what happened on Election Day 2000 and what Gallup estimated yesterday, it is very possible that Kerry is either tied or ahead in Wisconsin, and not behind by 3%.

 

The short version: If Gallup's LV sample was recalibrated to more closely reflect what actually happened in 2000, Kerry is probably clearly ahead in all three states

[CBright7831 0]

 

Kerry: 280

Bush: 254

 

Uh oh.

 

The tide has turned yet again.

 

Another interesting site I found is this one:

 

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/ev/

[bob_barron 0]

RCP has it Bush 264-220. Kerry's gotten some momentum- but not much

[cabbageboy 0]

I think I have ranted at great length on here about Gallup's ludicrous polling procedures. The info above is even more telling in its subtle brilliance. I mean, seeing Bush ahead 3% in NM wouldn't make people bat an eye, but when you look at the bizarre sample they used (nearly correct amount of Dems, but they used way more Reps than normal and not as many Inds).

 

I should also add that Nader polled at 3% in NM despite not being on the ballot this time. It'll be difficult for him to actually GET 3% in that case.

 

At any rate, I don't think the race truly starts hitting the home stretch until after the final debate. The undecideds should start making up their minds by that point.

[bob_barron 0]

UPDATE 10/8: Before the first debate President Bush had settled into a 5-6 six point lead in the race as measured by the RCP Poll Average. Since the debate, the national polls have tightened considerably and heading into the second debate tonight the RCP Average shows President Bush holding a small 1-2 point lead.

 

It is only logical that we are now seeing Kerry's movement in the national polls carrying over into the first post-debate polls at the state level. This tightening of the race prompted us on Tuesday to move Iowa from Leaning Bush to a Toss Up, and on Wednesday to move Ohio from Leaning Bush to a Toss Up and Pennsylvania from Toss Up to Leaning Kerry.

 

There is no question that the situation for Senator Kerry has improved dramatically in the last week. From an Electoral Vote standpoint, however, he is still facing an uphill battle.

 

Our earlier analysis suggesting that the race basically boils down to Florida and Ohio stands. However, it looks as if the aftermath of the hurricanes may have given President Bush a decisive edge there, so in reality it is now all about Ohio. If Kerry doesn't win Ohio he will not be President.

 

On balance, President Bush still holds the better Electoral hand because the evidence is massing that he has successfully moved Wisconsin into his column. Because of the very real potential to win Wisconsin, Bush can now lose Ohio and still have a reasonable chance for victory.

 

The Ohio/Wisconsin swap garners Kerry 10 Electoral Votes and, using the 2000 results as a template taking into account reapportionment, that would leave Kerry the winner, 270-268. Because the U.S House of Representatives splits all ties in the Electoral College, Bush likely only needs 269 votes to be reelected.

 

Geography more than anything else gives Kerry the slight advantage in New Hampshire which moves the Electoral tally to Kerry 274 - Bush 264. So if Bush does lose Ohio, but brings in Wisconsin, he will have to swing FIVE Electoral Votes to win.

 

President Bush has four different scenarios through which he could gain these votes. The best bet right now looks to be Iowa's 7 Electoral Votes where two post-debate polls show Kerry ahead by one, and a Democratic post-debate poll shows Bush up 3. (Minnesota is also a possibility, but the truth is if Minnesota goes for Bush, Iowa will already be in the President's column.)

 

Scenario number two is to win New Mexico's 5 Electoral Votes. Right now, the post-debate polls there show a dead heat, Gallup shows Bush up 3 while the Albuquerque Journal has Kerry ahead by 3.

 

The next target is New Hampshire's 4 Electoral Votes and the 1 Electoral Vote available if the President can carry Maine's 2nd Congressional district. Post-debate NH polls show Kerry ahead slightly and a post-debate poll in Maine shows Kerry would win the state, but if the election were held today Bush would probably pick up 1 Electoral Vote by winning CD2.

 

The last shot for the President to grab those needed 5 EV's comes from Oregon, though in all likelihood if President Bush ends up in a position where he needs Oregon's Electoral Votes to get reelected, it probably won't happen.

 

All of these different options depend on the President holding on to the rest of his 2000 states, which in this type of election scenario seems likely, though Nevada could be the one state where Kerry could steal back those 5 Electoral Votes. The one post-debate poll there shows Bush leading by 4.

 

Bottom line: Kerry has effectively used the first debate to get himself back in the game, but he continues to remain at a structural disadvantage in the Electoral College. The quartet of Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico could be where this election is decided. If Bush does have a hold on Wisconsin, then even if Senator Kerry wins Ohio, he will also have to win both Iowa and New Mexico to deny Bush four more years.

 

(Pennsylvania and Florida are must wins for Kerry and Bush respectively, a Bush loss in Florida or a Kerry loss in Pennsylvania means the election is over.)

 

From realclearpolitics.com

[Justice 0]

 

Kerry: 280

Bush: 254

 

Uh oh.

 

The tide has turned yet again.

 

Another interesting site I found is this one:

 

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/ev/

 

Kerry 260 Bush 274

 

And the tide turns back. Whoop-de-doo.

[2GOLD 0]

But the important fact is

 

KERRY HAS DELAWARE!

[teke184 0]

Anyone know if a poll BESIDES Zogby has Nevada in Kerry's column? Every other poll I see has Nevada as a Bush state by about 10%.