[Dales]

I did explain that in the thread where New Jersey was examined, and I have explained it a few times since.

For those who skipped reading the articles or who didn't catch subsequent in-thread explanations, I'll repeat it.

Here is what was in the eigth installment, where the 'call' was made:

New Jersey

Electoral Votes: 15

2000 Result

Gore 56%

Bush 40%

Background: New Jersey used to be considered a Republican state. Those days have passed, although there are still some signs of life. In the last 10 Presidential elections it has gone 1-6-3 with the Republican wins coming in the middle, the last Clinton win and the Gore win were by such substantial margins that it is hard to avoid the feeling that New Jersey is trending leftward.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat
9/8/03	Rutgers	Link	802 Adults	3.5%	Bush	43%	Unnamed Democrat	35%
9/15/03	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	36%	Unnamed Democrat	29%
1/11/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	40%	Unnamed Democrat	32%

Punditry: If I had to guess, the next New Jersey poll will show Kerry ahead of Bush. However, it has been very interesting how well Bush's numbers have fared here in the Garden State. While my gut tells me that this is going to change, the numbers indicate that it should as of now be in the Leans for Bush category. I want to see one more poll before I can do that though, given the Clinton/Gore margins. Slight Advantage for Bush.

To repeat the last portion with different language since many appear to be missing it, generally I just go with what the numbers say, confident that any errors will correct themselves over time. I do not do that dogmatically though; I did last year and I have decided that it was a mistake. If I was just going to go by the numbers, I would not have put NJ as 'slightly Bush' but rather in the more determinate 'leaning Bush' category. Simply put, the polls in hand indicate that is where it should be.

However, I used my judgement to say that since I expect NJ to go the other way, I will knock it down a notch. That is why it was placed in 'slight'. I suppose I could have just totally ignored all the polls and just put it where I think things will go, but if I was going to do that there would be no need to actually look at anything or see if evidence is pointing to something outside of conventional wisdom.

I do expect NJ to move to the Kerry side. I said as much. But by the methodology I use, it is not there yet.

Thanks

[Coop]

Since 9/11 we have had two measures (elections) in NJ. The Gov's race was unfortunately never really competitive, but in the 2002 Senate race Forrester would have indeed beaten the incumbent Torricelli. I can't remember how many times I argued the numbers, and folks wouldn't believe me because of NJ's recent Presidential history. Granted, it was Torricelli's weakness and not Forrester's strength, but do note the Dems had to bring in a retired incumbent (illegally) to keep the seat. So maybe 2002 and its aftermath demonstrated a rightward shift. I dunno. But if so, NJ's got a good ways to shift. :-)