Posted on 10/30/2004 7:08:54 PM PDT by quidnunc
So, sir, excuse me: Who are you going to vote for?
Bush.
Just like that — Bush? No hedging? No lesser of two evils? No 'buts'?
It's a lay-down.
But Kerry…
Kerry is unconscionable. He is a shameless, vindictive, wack-left extremist — a crypto-pacifist. A Kennedy acolyte. A mountebank, a charlatan, a fraud. A consummate, congenital liar. A self-serving, self-righteous, self-promoter — and insufferably arrogant. A fabricator, an embellisher, a credit-taker surpassing even Al Gore.
But Bush is so stup-
Bush has character in spades. He is a leader with discernible values the vast majority of Americans share. 9/11 transformed him — even redeemed him — for the second time. He is a man of optimism and locked-on resolve in the war against jihadist terror — the overwhelming issue in this campaign; Kerry is a pessimist and Hamlet-like waffler. Bush believes in taking the war to the enemy rather than allowing the enemy to beat us up here.
Kerry would enlist the UN and our other allies against terrorism.
Baloney. Kerry says he wants to do that, but waiting on the UN is an invitation to inaction. And what makes you think he would be more successful in enlisting support for removing Saddam than Bush was — in a military enterprise Kerry voted for? Kerry subsequently has voted against supporting our troops and has insulted our most steadfast allies.
Yet Kerry would bring in the important continental Europeans.
The Europeans you're talking about helped set up Saddam. They don't like our destruction of their investment. Nor do they, much, like us. And they won't help because they have neither the manpower nor the will to provide it. They have hardly any stomach for action at all.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
We have a record 44 polls today. If this keeps up we are soon going to have more polls than there are states. Florida wins with seven new polls today. By Tuesday we may be able to make a pretty decent Gaussian distribution just from the daily Florida polls. The most recent Florida poll, from Zogby puts Kerry ahead there 47% to 45%, with a margin of error of 4%. Yesterday he was behind by 1% there, so this is a jump of 3% in one day for Kerry. Of the seven Florida polls, four put Bush ahead and three put Kerry ahead. It is as close as it could be there.
Kerry has also pulled ahead again in Pennsylvania, 47% to 44%. yesterday it was tied at 47% each. However, Bush has now pulled ahead by 1% in Ohio, a gain of 4% from yesterday. Bush has also edged ahead in Colorado (by 1%) and Iowa (by 1%). According to Strategic Vision (R), New Jersey is tied, but to correctly interpret a Strategic Vision poll, you have to subtract about 4% or 5% from Bush's score, so although I have included it on the map in my effort to bend over backwards to be impartial. New Jersey is really safe for Kerry and the map score should really be Kerry 258, Bush 280.
To get a better idea of what you can believe and what you can't, a good starting place is the sum of the strong and weak states given in the map legend. Currently Bush leads slightly with 218 votes in the electoral college. Kerry has 191, and 129 are up for grabs. It could go either way.
Since Zogby is polling all the swing states every day now, the map is getting a bit one sided. Also, many of the pollsters are clearly partisan, monkeying with the data to make it look like their horse is ahead. There is no reason to doubt Zogby's honesty or accuracy, but it would be better to look at multiple pollsters. Consequently, I have made a new map that excludes the pollsters that admit they only work for one side. It does include pollsters like Gallup, which is officially neutral but appears to be including far too many Republicans in the samples. This new map always includes the most recent poll in each state, and then goes back up to 3 days to look for other polls to average in. A given pollster is used at most once and partisan pollsters are not used at all. The new map and spreadsheet use the suffix 'z' and are on the menu under the name Averaged polls. It gives a score of Bush 263 to Kerry 248, but remember, tiny shifts in a few states can alter this score radically.
Here is an update on yesterday's Zogby tracking poll. Kerry has pulled even with Bush. Each one is polling 47%. Four years ago, Gore was behind Bush by 3% at this point in the campaign, yet he ultimately won the popular vote. There is less room for movement tis time because there are fewer undecideds, but it is always possible that some voters will change their minds due to events occuring in the U.S. or abroad.
| Candidate | E-10 | E-9 | E-8 | E-7 | E-6 | E-5 | Final |
| Kerry | 46% | 45% | 46% | 47% | 46% | 47% | |
| Bush | 48% | 48% | 49% | 48% | 48% | 47% | |
| Nader | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | |
| Other | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 2% | |
| Undecided | 4% | 5% | 3% | 3% | 4% | 3% |
Now look at the same time period for the 2000 election, plus the final results.
| Candidate | E-10 | E-9 | E-8 | E-7 | E-6 | E-5 | Final |
| Gore | 43% | 42% | 42% | 41% | 42% | 42% | 48.38% |
| Bush | 44% | 45% | 45% | 46% | 45% | 45% | 47.87% |
| Nader | 5% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 5% | 5% | 2.74% |
| Other | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 1.01% |
| Undecided | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 0% |
Zogby wasn't the only one predicting a big win for Bush at this point four years ago. On Oct 29, 2000, Gallup released a poll showing Bush ahead 49% to 42%. In the early days of November 2000, Zogby correctly noted a sharp trend towards Gore as the undecideds finally bit the bullet. Zogby ended up predicting Gore would narrowly win the popular vote. Gallup stayed the course and ultimately predicted that Bush would win the popular vote by 2%. Of course, we now know Gore won the popular vote by about 0.5%.
If you are looking for a map where the area of each state is proportional to the number of votes it has in the electoral college, see the Cartogram link on the menu. 30 Oct 2004 06:00:00 EDT - http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct29.html
Another bumper crop of polls, 36 of them in 17 states to be exact. And as usual, the bottom line is that it is still a statistical tie. In the Zogby tracking polls, Bush has taken a 2% lead in Michigan, although in Rasmussen's tracking poll, Kerry has a 2% lead. Research 2000 give Kerry a 4% lead there. Since Zogby's poll is 4 days ending yesterday, Rasmussen's poll is 7 days ending yesterday, and Research 2000's poll is 3 days ending Wednesday, Zogby has the most recent middle date and goes in the spreadsheet.
According to Zogby, Pennsylvania is now a tie at 47% each. Strategic Vision (R) also says it is a tie, but Quinnipiac puts Kerry 1% ahead and Rasmussen puts Kerry 3% ahead. Remember that Zogby saying PA is a tie means the pollster is predicting that there is a 95% chance that the true score for each candidate falls in the range 43% to 51%, no more and no less. All the battleground states are statistical ties. A couple of percent lead means nothing. According to Zogby, Kerry has increased his lead in Ohio to 3%, but that also means nothing. Turnout will determine who wins.
Zogby now puts Kerry ahead in Iowa, but Strategic Vision (R) and ARG have it the other way slightly. Again, a statistical tie.
Many readers have noticed that because Zogby gets his numbers out the door faster than anyone, all the battleground states contain just Zogby numbers. While I have faith in Zogby, I also have faith in ARG, Rasmussen, Quinnipiac, and some (but not all) of the others. During the weekend I will produce yet more software :-( to make a map averaging recent polls, in addition to keeping the most-recent-poll-wins map.
I have decided to tell more about myself before the election. Be sure to come back Monday. Some of you will be quite surprised, I can assure you.
Examining the Zogby national tracking polls is an interesting exercise because I found the comparable Zogby tracking poll data for 2000. The table below presents the last few days of national tracking data. E-6 is the data released 6 days before election day, that is the data through Oct. 27. E-7 is the day prior to that (data through Oct 26), etc. On E-6, Bush had a 2% lead, well within the poll's 3% MoE.
| Candidate | E-10 | E-9 | E-8 | E-7 | E-6 | Final |
| Kerry | 46% | 45% | 46% | 47% | 46% | |
| Bush | 48% | 48% | 49% | 48% | 48% | |
| Nader | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 1% | |
| Other | 1% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 1% | |
| Undecided | 4% | 5% | 3% | 3% | 4% |
Now look at the same time period for the 2000 election, plus the final results.
| Candidate | E-10 | E-9 | E-8 | E-7 | E-6 | Final |
| Gore | 43% | 42% | 42% | 41% | 42% | 48.38% |
| Bush | 44% | 45% | 45% | 46% | 45% | 47.87% |
| Nader | 5% | 5% | 5% | 4% | 5% | 2.74% |
| Other | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 1.01% |
| Undecided | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 7% | 0% |
The conclusion is that Gore was down at this point in 2000 by slightly more than Kerry is, yet he ultimately won the popular vote. On the other hand, there are fewer Nader supporters and fewer undecideds this year. Finally, note that other national polls are all over the map. The Economist has Kerry ahead by 4%, Greenberg has Kerry ahead by 3%, Leger says it is a tie, ICR has Bush ahead by 2%, the LA Times says it is a tie, Gallup puts Bush ahead by 2% and on and on. A good, free, polling source is NowChannel.com
Stupidity news revisited: Yesterday I pointed out that one of Kerry's Ohio electors, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is constitutionally ineligible to be an elector because he is a federal officeholder. He resigned yesterday as elector, undoubtedly due to my pointing this out to 650,000 people. Suppose he had stayed on and Kerry won the popular vote and Ohio and the electoral college 270 to 268. If the Republicans had gone to the Supreme Court and gotten Brown declared ineligible and also gotten a ruling saying that Ohio could not replace him with someone the voters had not selected, the score would be Kerry 269, Bush 268. Since Kerry would no longer have the required 270 electoral votes needed to win, the House, controlled by the Republicans, would then choose Bush. We could have had a situation in which Kerry won the popular vote, Kerry won the electoral vote, and Bush became president. I don't think that would have been good for the country.
Even more unlikely news: A reader pointed this out to be. Suppose the EC is tied 269 to 269 and the House deadlocks 25 states to 25 states. This is exceedingly unlikely, but just suppose. Then the Senate gets to choose the vice president. Also suppose the new Senate is divided 50-50, a very real possibility. Then the sitting vice president, Dick Cheney, gets to cast the deciding vote, electing himself as the new vice president. In the absence of a president, Cheney would be acting president for four years. This is not likely to happen because the Republicans are virtually certain of controlling at least 26 state delegations in the House. Still, scenarios like this one support the case for electoral college reform.
Beat the rush. Find out about the woman who replaced Katherine Harris, now a member of Congress, as Florida's secretary of state. In the aftermath of 2000, Florida decided to make the secretary of state a gubernatorial appointee, rather than an elected official, although it is hard for me to see how this makes it less partisan. In 2003, Gov. Jeb Bush appointed Glenda Hood secretary of state. Ms. Hood, a popular former mayor of Orlando, was a Bush elector in 2000. You will no doubt get to hear a lot about Ms. Hood in the coming days.
Thank you for donating all your used pixels to Hawaii. The white ones were especially helpful. The Big Island is now colored properly (a little help from Eric Paulson, the web designer who did the mouseovers didn't hurt either). The other islands are just too small to color properly. 29 Oct 2004 06:00:00 EDT - http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct28.html
Today's harvest is 39 polls in 18 states. In most states the winner didn't change, but we have motion in two key states. The most recent poll in Ohio, Zogby's tracking poll, puts Kerry a tad ahead there, 46% to 45%, well within the margin of error. Other Ohio polls are mixed. Rasmussen's tracking poll puts Bush 4% ahead but the LA Times poll puts Kerry 4% ahead. Let's call Ohio a tie. Which way it goes will almost assuredly depend on the turnout Tuesday, especially among younger voters. Could OSU elect the next president? It is not out of the question.
The other state where we have a change is Michigan. According to the latest poll there (Zogby's tracking poll) Bush and Kerry are tied at 47% each. However, two other polls (Rasmussen and Mitchell Research put Kerry ahead by 6% and 1%, respectively). All in all, by gaining Ohio and having Michigan be tied, Kerry makes a net gain and now leads in the electoral college, but neither candidate has the required 270 electoral votes it takes to win.
Ellis Henican had a very insightful column yesterday that is relevant to the Rasmussen poll I cited yesterday in which 1/3 of the voters weren't sure the election would be fair. Henican said the banks execute millions of ATM transactions every day, giving the customer a printed receipt if requested, and get them all right all the time. Not a margin of 1%, no recounts, but 100% right all the time. Why can't we make a voting system that is 100% right all the time? It would seem to me that the right way to do this would be a touch screen machine that asks the voter to make choices for the various offices in a language chosen by the voter (with audio output if desired), and when all done prints a paper ballot the voter can personally verify and deposit in the ballot box. The computer total would be available instantly after the polls close but in the event of a challenge, these paper ballots could be optically scanned or even hand counted. I can't believe a system like this is infeasible and it would certainly help restore faith in the electoral process.
But the problems aren't only technological. There may be deeper forces at work. Today's New York Times reports that tens of thousands of absentee ballots in Florida's heavily Democratic Broward County have mysteriously vanished. The county says it mailed them but the post office says it never got them.
Several lawyers have contacted me about the issue of what to do if you show up to vote and the election officials say you are not registered. Here is the procedure. First, be absolutely sure you are in the correct precinct. If you are in the wrong precinct, in most states, your vote won't be counted. If you are not 100% certain of your polling place, go to www.mypollingplace.com and check. Alternatively, call the toll-free number 1-866-OUR-VOTE or your county clerk. If you are sure you are in the correct polling place and the officials claim you are not registered, ask for a provisional ballot and fill it out correctly. You are entitled to one by law. Politely, but firmly, insist on being given a provisional ballot.
Today's Washington Post has an excellent story dealing with the issue of whether the polls are accurate. The basic problem is that the vast majority of people refuse to participate, so the sample is no longer random. Surveying mostly elderly, lonely, or bored people can bias the results. The Post reports that one caller apparently was so fed up with telemarketeers and pollsters that he attached a device to the telephone that made such a loud noise it damaged the pollster's eardrum. Even response rates for exit polls on election day have dropped to 50%. This information goes a long way to explaining why the polls are so erratic this year. But in all fairness, the final 2000 polls weren't so hot either. Eleven of the 15 national polls just before the election predicted Bush would win the popular vote by a margin of 2% to 6%. Ultimately, Gore won it by 0.5%.
Legal news: A U.S. District Court judge in Cleveland killed an effort by the GOP to remove tens of thousands of Ohio voters, largely minorities from the voter rolls, but a judge in Cincinnati has granted a temporary restraining order in a related case. See Rick Hasen's Election Law blog for more on these stories.
Stupidity news: One of Kerry's electors in Ohio, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is a congressman. Unfortunately, the constitution forbids federal office holders from being electors. It is possible that if Kerry wins Ohio, Brown's right to cast an electoral vote will be challenged in court. Whoever picked a constitutionally ineligible elector needs to get his or her mental software upgraded to the latest release.
Sleeper news: A Rasmussen poll taken Oct. 26 in Arizona puts Libertarian party candidate Michael Badnarik at 3%. When the pollsters actually ask about him, he does surprisingly well. He might end up canceling out the Nader factor by appealing to disgruntled Republicans who support a balanced budget and small government and are appalled by the current deficit and power the Patriot Act gives the government to snoop on people's lives.
How political involved is your college or alma mater? Take a look at university hits page. Note that there is no correction for size here, just the raw hit count.
Earlier I pointed out a number of prominent conservatives supporting Kerry, such as President Eisenhower's son, John, a lifelong Republican. I said that if any prominent liberals supported Bush I would mention them, too. OK, I'll keep my promise. Several readers pointed out that former NYC mayor Ed Koch, has endorsed Bush. Some people also pointed out Sen. Zell Miller, too, but he is certainly not a liberal and has been voting with the Republicans in the Senate for years, so he is barely even a Democrat.
Several people commented that Hawaii is colored weak Bush when it should be barely Bush. This is simply because Hawaii doesn't have enough pixels. If you have any spare pixels, please donate them to Hawaii. 28 Oct 2004 06:00:00 EDT - http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct27.html
The polling continues apace. We have 28 new polls today with changes in three states. First, Wisconsin has now switched to the Kerry column, according to a Zogby tracking poll conducted Oct 23-26. Kerry is now ahead 48% to 46% in one of the swingingest of the swing states. But with a margin of error of 4%, it is still a statistical tie there.
Zogby also shows that Iowa has become a tie at 45% each, according to its Oct. 23-26 poll. Gallup ran a poll in Iowa Oct. 22-25, only a day before Zogby's, and found that among registered voters, Kerry leads 48% to 47%. However, among what Gallup believes are likely voters, Bush is ahead 50% to 46%, a surprisingly large difference. This immediately brings up the issue of how Gallup decides to reject some respondents as unlikely voters. The likely voter screen involves questions about past voting behavior, interest in the election, and knowledge of where the polling place is. Given the huge number of new voters this year, there are legitimate questions about how accurately pollsters can predict likely voters. For this reason, the spreadsheet and map just use the registered voter data where that is available. In this specific case, Zogby's poll is more recent so the issue is moot.
The third change is in Arkansas, where Bush now leads again. This result is not surprising as most observers didn't think there was much of a horse race in Arkansas to begin with. All in all, Kerry gains ground in the electoral college today, reducing Bush's lead to 17 EVs.
Also noteworthy are the four Florida and four Ohio polls today although neither of those states changed hands. Of the four Florida polls, two of them (ARG and Survey USA) give Kerry leads of 3% and 2%, respectively, one of them (Rasmussen) is a tie at 48% apiece, and one of them (Zogby) shows Bush ahead by 4%. I find it ironic that all summer long I was bombarded with e-mail from Republicans denouncing John Zogby as an unreliable Democrat, but that now that he is the only one showing Bush ahead in the key swing states, the e-mail has abruptly ceased. But Zogby's poll is the most recent, so it is the one I am using. Nevertheless, trouble is clearly brewing for Bush in Florida.
We also have four polls in Ohio today. Kerry leads in two (ARG and Survey USA) and trails in two (Zogby and Rasmussen). As in Florida, everything will depend on turnout. It will be very close in any case.
Rasmussen did a survey asking people if they were worried about a Florida-style mess again this year. The results are that 48% of the Kerry voters are worried about this as well as 16% of the Bush voters. I think it is very disturbing when a third of the electorate have doubts about whether there will be a fair election. No doubt these fears are enhanced when election officials reject voter registrations because the paper was the wrong weight. And having states go to court to fight for the right to discard provisional ballots cast by voters in the wrong precinct (for example, because they have moved) doesn't exactly send the message that every vote is important. The BBC has scooped the U.S. media by obtaining a secret document that reports on more upcoming voter suppression activities, possibly in violation of U.S. law
The Los Angeles Times has a story today that explains why this election is so much more emotionally charged than previous ones. It is not about economics, but part of a cultural war. A new LA Times poll shows Bush doing well among lower and middle income whites, whereas Kerry leads among whites earning more than $100,000 a year despite his promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year. As president, Bush has enacted big tax cuts for the rich but the rich are voting for Kerry. What's up here? The same poll shows that 2/3 of the people who attend a house of worship at least once a week are voting for Bush, whereas 60% of those who attend religious services less than once a week are voting for Kerry, in part because these voters recoil at Bush's constant use of religious imagery. Lower income whites like Bush's proposal to ban gay marriage but only a quarter believe his policies have been good for the economy. In contrast, affluent whites who have benefitted the most from the Bush tax cuts believe Bush's policies have hurt the economy. In short, far more than in previous years, economic policy is taking a back seat to cultural issues. The real divide seems to be between deeply religious lower income, lower education, voters living in small towns and rural areas who have conservative values on abortion and gay marriage versus higher income, higher education, secular, urban voters who have progressive views on cultural issues. Maybe James Carville was wrong: It's NOT the economy, stupid. With this background and the fact that eight of the nine Supreme Court justices are past the traditional retirement age of 65 and four of them have been treated for cancer, it is likely that the choice of who the next president will nominate to the Court will weigh increasingly heavily on the minds of many voters as we approach election day. For more on this issue, see this story also, in the LA Times. 27 Oct 2004 06:00:00 EDT - http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct26.html
The race is tightening. Six new polls in Florida show Kerry leading in 1 poll, Bush leading in 3 polls, and two being exact ties. Excluding the Gallup poll for the moment, the average of the other five polls (Insider Advantage, Rasmussen, Strategic Vision, Survey USA, and Zogby) is Kerry 47% and Bush 48%, a statistical tie. The Gallup poll shows Bush ahead 51% to 42%, giving Bush a lead far outside the margin of error. Could Gallup be right and everyone else wrong? Who knows, but remember that in 2000 Gallup was way off, greatly underestimating Gore's vote. I'm inclined to believe the other five and say Florida is tied. Three new polls in Ohio show a statistical dead heat there too. When many polls for the same state come in on the same day, the rule is the poll with the most recent middle date wins, with ties being broken in favor of the shortest one. The first entry for each state in the Polling data file listed next to the map shows the one used on the map.
A new poll in Nebraska answers that age-old question: could Nebraska split its votes in the electoral college with a resounding: NO! Bush has huge leads in all three congressional districts. Similarly, Kerry is way ahead in both of Maine's congressional districts and the Colorado referendum is behind. Looks like it is going to be winner-take-all in every state.
The future belongs to the young. And maybe the election, too. Gallup did a survey among first time voters and determined that they prefer Kerry to Bush by a huge margin, 50% to 35%. First time voters are primarily in the 18-29 year age range. This is the same population that may have been undersampled in the polls because many of them have only a cell phone and no landline. Zogby's tracking poll, which breaks down the results by demographic group, shows a similar result. Young (18-29) voters have markedly different preferences than the population as a whole. In six of the ten states surveyed, Kerry leads by double digits. These are Colorado (32%), Florida (22%), New Mexico (28%), Pennsylvania (15%), Wisconsin (16%), and Michigan (32%). In Nevada Kerry's lead is 8%. Bush leads among younger voters in two states: Iowa (4%) and Minnesota (20%). The latter number defies all reason. I wonder if it was a typo. Maybe if enough people ask Zogby to double check this, we'll find out. But the conclusion is clear: if younger voters break with tradition and actually vote in large numbers this time, it could swing the election.
Senate news: A new poll in Kentucky shows Dr. Daniel Mongiardo has closed the gap with incumbent Sen. Jim Bunning. Mongiardo is only 1% behind in the latest Garin Hart Yang (D) poll. All in all, the projected Senate is 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats (counting Jeffords as a Democrat) with tossups in Florida and South Dakota.
Supreme Court news: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, has thyroid cancer and had an emergency tracheotomy at Bethesda Naval Hospital according to a report in today's Washington Post. Thyroid cancer has several forms, but all are difficult to treat in older patients according to medical experts. Rehnquist is not the only member of the Court to have been diagnosed with cancer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71, had colon cancer, Sandra Day O"Conner, 74, had breast cancer, and John Paul Stevens, 84, had prostate cancer. This latest occurence of cancer once again spotlights the age of the current justices and the fact that the next president is almost certainly going to have multiple vacancies to fill, probably including the Chief Justice. With respect to judicial apppointments, it is harder to imagine two candidates whose judicial appointments would differ more than Bush and Kerry's. Will the next president appoint Justices determined to reverse Roe v. Wade or to reaffirm it? What about teaching of creationism in schools, separation of church and state, medical research using stem cells, and so many other issues on which the candidates differ? Ultimately, practically all of them end up in the Supreme Court. Ten years from now the war in Iraq will be over (hopefully), but the justices the next president appoints will still be on the Court making decisions that affect many aspects of life in America. Think carefully about this issue before voting next Tuesday.
Or earlier. In many states, it is possible to avoid standing in line next Tuesday by casting your vote early, either in person or by absentee ballot. If you wish to vote early ask your county clerk if early voting is an option in your area. Also, if you try to vote, either early or next week, and you are not on the voting list, be sure to ask for a provisional ballot. With such a ballot you can cast your vote anyway and the election officials will determine your eligibility after the polls close. If you are indeed eligible to vote, your vote will be counted. 26 Oct 2004 06:00:00 EDT - http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct25.html
If you are new to the site today, greetings. You might want to look at the Welcome page. It contains an overview of the many maps, charts, graphs, tables, articles, history, political cartoons, and other election material on the site.
In contrast to previous Mondays, there are many new polls today, with 19 states getting new numbers (although most didn't change sides). In addition to the ususual polls, Zogby has begun daily tracking polls in 10 battleground states, which I will also toss into the hopper. According to Zogby's polls, conducted Oct. 21-24, Bush is currently leading in six states (FL, NM, NV, WI, IA, and OH), while Kerry is leading in four states (CO, MN, PA, MI). Some of these results are very surprising. Is Kerry really leading by 4% in Colorado? Is Bush really leading by 5% in New Mexico? I don't believe either of those. They are in conflict with too many other polls. Another example: the current Ohio University poll gives Kerry a 6% lead in that state, whereas Zogby puts Bush ahead by 5%. The MoE on these polls is 4%, so an 11% change in a couple of days in a state with so few undecideds is impossible. I think there are serious problems with all the polls.
Speaking of undecideds, here is another article on how they have broken in the past (summary: they go heavily for the challenger, who always does much better than the final polls suggest). The model with the undecideds going 2:1 for the challenger still shows Kerry ahead.
A new poll in Maine shows Kerry leading Bush there 50% to 39%. This new Zogby poll, conducted Oct. 20-21, is the first one I have seen that breaks the state down by congressional district. Kerry is well ahead in both CDs. Since Nebraska is overwhelmingly Republican, neither of the states that split their votes in the electoral college by congressional district will, in fact, do so. The referendum to split Colorado's electors in proportion to the popular vote is currently behind. Other surprising polls are ones showing Bush ahead in Hawaii by 1% and Arkansas being tied at 48% each. The Zogby polls put Bush ahead in Florida and Ohio, so his lead in the electoral college has increased today. It is going to be a wild ride this week. Stay tuned.
Legal news: The Supreme Court has rejected Ralph Nader's appeal to be placed on the Pennsylvania ballot. His Ohio case is still pending.
Senate news: For an informative rundown on the Senate races, see this article from a Pennsylvania newspaper. One race that is getting a lot of unexpected attention is in Kentucky, where the incumbent, Sen. Jim Bunning, broke his agreement to debate challenger Dr. Daniel Mongiardo in Kentucky and debated instead from the RNC in Washington by satellite so he could read his opening and closing statements from a TelePrompTer. This event and some of his more outrageous statements (like little green men working for Mongiardo beat up his wife) have led to speculating that he has Alzheimer's disease. Nevertheless, a new Bluegrass Poll puts Bunning ahead 49% to 43%. Zogby is checking the Senate races in the 10 battleground states he will be polling daily, and we will update the Senate page with all the new data. Based on the current data, the new Senate will be 50 Republicans, 49 Democrats (including Jeffords) with South Dakota an exact tie right now. In reality, about 8 or 9 Senate races are tossups.
Conservative news: A surprising number of prominent conservatives, including the editor of the The American Conservative, have endorsed Kerry saying that Bush does not believe in basic conservative principles such as balanced budgets and small government. So far I haven't seen any prominent liberals or editors of liberal magazines endorse Bush.
Yesterday's Washington Post picked up the story about the Univ. of Maryland report that I reported Friday. This report concluded that Bush and Kerry supporters live in different worlds with different facts. For example, 75% of Bush supporters believe that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks (vs. 30% of Kerry supporters), despite the bipartisan 9/11 commission concluding that Iraq was not involved in the attacks. Similar disparities exist on whether Iraq had WMD, whether the world approves of the war in Iraq and more.
If you missed yesterday, a new magnified plot was introduced for the graphs of the swing states. All the state graphs can be reached from the State poll graphs page.
Thanks to all of your generous donations, I have now placed ads on 90 blogs and the websites of 24 college newspapers in swing states. The list is on the donations page.
Don't like Bush or Kerry or Nader or Badnarik or Cobb or any of the others? Maybe YOU should be president. Simcountry is a multiplayer Internet game in which you are the president, commander in chief and industrial leader. You decide how to allocate the federal budget, which products to manufacture, where to build schools and infrastructure, and which countries you want to invade. If you can beat the other presidents, you can win cash awards. Playing the game is free, but be warned, it is addictive. 25 Oct 2004 06:00:00 EDT - http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct24.html
There are 18 new polls today, mostly in battleground states, but no states switched sides there. However, a change comes from a most unlikely location. A new poll in Hawaii shows the race is tied there. If it is really true, this is very bad news for Kerry. He was supposed to win easily there. Of course he could fly out there this week for some much needed vacation time and call it campaigning, but I doubt that he will. As a result of Hawaii becoming a tie, Bush now takes the lead in the electoral college, 254 to 253. Talk about a tight race where every vote counts.
The New York Times has a story today saying that both campaigns have abandoned 39 states and D.C. and are putting all their efforts into 11 states. These states, worth 135 electoral votes, are Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio (which Bush won in 2000) as well as Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (which Gore won in 2000). My best guess is that Michigan, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania are going to go for Kerry and there is little Bush can do now to prevent that. Bush has the edge in Colorado and probably Nevada, although his promise to bury all of the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, which some experts feel is geological unstable, could still hurt him there.
Missing from the list are Arkansas, Arizona, Tennessee, and West Virginia. All have been close at one time or another. Apparently both sides feel they are in the bag for Bush, or at least, low priority. I tend to agree, although if the Democratic turnout is exceptionally large, there could be surprises in one or more. Put in simple terms, it mostly comes down to Ohio and Florida. Those are the big prizes.
The Los Angeles Times has a story today about new voters. The story can be summarized by this excerpt: "Nationwide, at least two polls in the last week showed that newly registered voters favored Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry by double-digit margins. The Massachusetts senator holds an even greater lead, the polls found, among voters 29 and younger... A New York-based television consulting firm randomly questioned 1,225 voters over the Internet and concluded that "cell-only" voters favored Kerry by 53% to 38%." On the other hand, Democratic strategist James Carville once said: "You know what they call a candidate who's counting on a lot of new voters? A loser." The conclusion is that the new voters and younger voters favor Kerry by a large margin, but historically they don't actually bother to vote. If they do this time, it could make a big difference.
Raise your hand if back, say, five years ago, you were wishing to have a law school professor fill a daily blog with stories about court cases relating to election law. Well, your wish has been granted. See Rick Hasen's Election Law blog. Today's breaking news on the election law front is that voters in Ohio casting provisional ballots must do that in their own precinct, otherwise it doesn't count. News stories on the possibility of five or six Floridas are starting to appear. I hope they have good beaches but no hurricanes.
Here is an example of the kind of issue that might turn Ohio into Florida.. Take a look at the absentee ballot for Cuyahoga County, where Cleveland is located. Suppose you wanted to vote for George Bush. Which square would you fill in? If you picked the one I colored in green, congratulations, you just threw your vote away. The one in red is the correct choice to vote for George Bush. Blue is for Kerry. I guess that after losing her reelection bid, Palm Beach County, FL, elections supervisor Theresa LePore must have gotten a new job designing ballots in Ohio. I didn't think ballot design was rocket science. Shows you what I know.
Late absentee ballots aren't only a problem for overseas voters. They are also late in Alaska, which may affect the tight Senate race there. Alaskans who are affected by this issue should look at this emergency method for voting by fax.
Due to the heavy polling in the swing states, the graphs with state polls have gotten so cluttered as to be useless. Therefore I have added a magnified graph for just October to the swing states. The state graphs can all be reached from here.
And finally, a new cartoon of the week. Note to political cartoonists: Florida and Hawaii now are tied. Where are all the undecided voters? At the beach naturally. 24 Oct 2004 06:00:00 EDT
Why not just post the link to the map?
http://www.electoral-vote.com/index.html
Because the map is only 1 slice of the whole pie. This goes ito details that some might wish to peruse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
