Skip to comments.NOV 1, 2004 Polling data Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 298 Bush 231
Posted on 11/01/2008 4:11:27 PM PDT by tallyhoe
There was another attack this morning and that took some time to deal with. Remember that if the site is unreachable, try the backup sites: www.electoral-vote3.com through www.electoral-vote8.com. I will also update the site tonight as the actual results come in.
Furthermore I will also do a post-mortem on the election in the coming days, so check back later in the week. My special interest is how well the pollsters did. To see the current predictions broken down by pollster, see the Pollsters page and the pages for the battleground states, many of which have separate graphs per pollster. Now let's start with the pre-mortem.
Another bumper crop of polls, 47 in all. Five states changed since yesterday. A University of New Hampshire poll breaks the tie there and gives Kerry a 1% edge in New Hampshire 49% to 48%. According to Zogby, Kerry is also edging ahead in New Mexico, 51% to 48%.
Now come some controversial polls. Yesterday we had Kerry ahead in Ohio on the strength of a Gallup poll showing him 7% ahead there. Today we have a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showing Kerry 3% ahead there Please don't send e-mail telling me what you think of Fox news. I'm pretty good at guessing, but I am trying very hard to be impartial. Tomorrow we'll know. Similarly, in Wisconsin a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll shows Kerry's 7% lead has vanished overnight and been replaced by Bush's 3% lead. Again, PLEASE no e-mail about this. Instead, come back tomorrow for the post-mortem. If you don't buy these numbers, add 30 to Kerry and subtract 30 from Bush to get Kerry 292, Bush 231.
(Excerpt) Read more at electoral-vote.com ...
Al Gore would have! Gore was a Socialist! However he did not have friend like William Ayers, Rev. Wright, Rezko, and RASHID KHALIDI.
..one can never have too many accurate polls—ROFL...
Speaking of biased polls, the guy who runs electionprojection.com, claims to be a conservative and a McCain supporter, and yet he’s predicting all doom and gloom for McCain on election night, even going so far as showing solid red states such as North Carolina and Indiana in Obama’s column, and he’s showing North Dakota and Montana dangerously close. Not only that, but he also claims that Republicans are going to lose many more seats in the House and Senate. My bet is that this guy is really a lib, trying to pass himself off as one of us. Here’s the link to his site. http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml
Anyone have any insights about this guy?
This site had a pretty accurate projection a month or so before the 2004 election, using a new formula. It showed Bush winning FL and OH, and winning by 4 points overall. He took it down because he thought it was “inaccurate”. Of course, it was very accurate.
“Wow, compared to those two, Id probably liked Tipper.”
Yeah. She’s paid her dues, LOL!
What IS it with Liberal women and the DORKS they marry? And don’t even get me started on Mary Matlin married to James Carville! And she bore his children, LOL!
That’s what I’m saying.
Kerry and Gore would’ve been too chicken-livered to pull off some of the stuff Obama is planning...with a little help from his friends.
Both Kerry and Gore were pretty liberal, real close to socialism, Gore would have enacted the Kyoto treaty in his first year, however I don’t think it would have passed the senate. The Kyoto treaty is a business killer.
I hate to break it to you, but simply predicting an Obama and Democratic victory does not make one a lib. It essentially a forgone conclusion that Republicans are going to lose House and Senate seats. Many people are also fairly certain that Obama is going to win. That in and of itself does not make one a liberal.
Encouraging, but in terms of historical results, the states Bush won in 2004 are the high water mark. If Bush had lost Ohio, we would have had President Kerry. Losing Virginia would have brought about another 2000 election scenario.
It does when one talks about 'foregone conclusions'!
Those people who are 'fairly certain' that Obama is going to win haven't looked at the internal numbers very hard.
Obama is losing something like 20% of his own base, McCain isn't.
Kerry held his base as well.
Obama has to put out a massive turnout, even surpassing Kerry's which was huge.
So far, nothing in the early voting has indicated any such large increase.
Obama did not even dominate his own Parties Primaries, being beaten often by Hillary and had to limp into the nomination.
As for the House and Senate, I think we have a good shot at picking up House seats and holding most of our Senate seats.
Now,if you have any information that runs counter to what I just said, let me know.
In a head to head match up our base beat theirs.
So, all we have to do is get our base out and vote and we will win.
Kerry had a united Democrat base, Obama doesn't.
Obama was counting on a youth vote, which is very unlikely to appear.
Obama is facing the loss of crucial States like PA and NH.
Obama is facing a much harder road then Kerry did.
Unfortunately that is pretty much wishful thinking.
Thanks for posting this.
Except the site (electionprojection.com) is not saying it is a foregone conclusion. Rather they are posting the predicted outcome.
I am with you all the way.
Unfortunately that is pretty much wishful thinking.
Kerry took that State with 2%.
Obama is losing 20% of his own base.
NH is also considered a 'toss up' State.
So, I know that you are going to be disappointed, but both those States will likely go McCain.
You have any HARD data that suggests otherwise.
But, ofcourse, you are just being 'realistic'-yea right!
If Obama loses Pennsylvania, McCain has a good chance, agreed (although this election may end up with the blue and red states “trading paint”). But do you have any numbers to back up your claim that the Democrat base isn’t “united”?
It essentially a forgone conclusion that Republicans are going to lose House and Senate seats.
Those were the words that YOU used.
Now, do you have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to say about the election?
The only reason Obama is predicted to win is because the polls themselves are biased. If this guy doesn’t realize that he is basing his assumptions on biased polls than he is still a tool of the left, regardless of what his personal beliefs may be. However, after reading his bio, it becomes clear that he does indeed know what he is doing, and therefore his motives are suspect to say the least.
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.