FederalReview Requests: Please, no personal attacks. Back up your arguments. Be substantive.
Winston, take this at face value, I'm not trying to bait you, I sincerely want your opinion. I'm sorry but based on the current trend, I don't see Dubya getting the necessary 270+ EVs. Here's my analysis, please tell me where I'm flawed:
Dubya's 2000 EV 271
Change due to
reapportionment 7
Dubya's 2004 EV
if he carries every
state that he did
in 2000 278
Less:
Florida (27)
New Hampshire (4)
Best estimate
Dubya 2004 EV 247
This means Dubya has to make up 23 EV from states that went against him in 2000. Considering the fact that Dubya isn't polling over his actual vote % in any state in 2000, how can you realistically think that he'll eventually prevail in 13 weeks.
What states do you think he'll take away? Maybe New Mexico, maybe Oregon, but where else?
How's this not in the bag for Kerry?
Please allow me to alter the comment in the last paragraph of my message above. I double-checked on realclearpolitics.com. New Mexico and Oregon are more solidly Kerry than Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Dubya can still theoretically win if he carries Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin, all which he didn't win in 2000. However, be that as it may, what do you believe are his chances of carry all three of those states?
As far as I am concerned, Kerry is 20 points down. I don't care what the polls say. Confidence = complacency.
We are 20 points down.
Can't answer for Winston, but I think it's premature to "award" Florida to Kerry. I do believe the outcome in 2000 was an aberration, and that Dubya will carry Florida by a comfortable margin, just as his brother did in 2002 (when by conventional wisdom it was also supposed to be close).
Brandon, with all due respect, I whole-heartedly disagree with you. In Palm Beach County alone there are a net fifty thousand newly registered democrats. All though I have no hard data to support this, it appears as though the Floridian African-American community will come out in droves to vote against Dubya on November 2, 2004. My guess is that many of them feel as though they were disenfranchised in 2000.
The only way Dubya carries Fla. is for widescale voter fraud to happen. I don't believe Jeb would even be willing to do that. After all, he has his political legacy to consider. While he'll never be able to mount a credible run for the WH because he's inextricably linked to his chimpanzee brother, Jeb may someday want to be a U.S. senator.
Lavrenty,
We heard the same claims in 2002, and Jeb won going away, by double digits, despite the Democratic National Committee's huge commitment of resources to unseat him. Perhaps you know of some reason for this year to be different?
That's funny Brandon, but I don't remember those same claims being made with respect to Jeb's 2002 re-election. In 2002 the DNC did not commit huge resources to defeat Jeb because in 2002 the DNC was still neutered. After all, the DNC would've used a "huge commitment of resources" to ensure Max Cleland's re-election.
The worm has turned. The Screamer (aka Howard Dean) gave the Democrats their balls back. Dubya's continued ineptitude has given them the motivation.
The FL. demographics has changed. More than one million new residents since 2000. Big increase in non cuban hispanics and the african american population has increased. This state is becoming more like a northern state. That is why Bush is down 6-7 pts in the latest polls by two different pollesters.
NE Pats fans remember no one expected us to win the SB, except us. No one knows right now. It's 50-50. Good.
Lavrenty: I think it is too early to assume that Kerry wins Florida. Be careful, if you are so sure that Bush can only win through vote fraud, you better have evidence of it other than your pre-election expectations, if Bush wins it.
I think Bush needs to win Florida to win the election. If he doesn't get Florida, I don't see any scenario where he gets Wisconsin and Minnesota. Bush's convention is coming up and if he doesn't move the state by state numbers then he's toast, barring some strange occurrence.
Your calculation of the probability of a Kerry win at only 75% is a joke.
For a real analysis, look at Princeton Professor Sam Wang's site:
http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sa...m/
pollcalc.html
Half the states, including important battlegrounds, don't yet have polls accurately representing the post-DNC environment.
Moreover, many of the composite sites, yours included, is still including polls more than 60 days old. That's ridiculous methodology with only 82 days until the election. State polling data hasn't caught up to the national polling results where Kerry is ahead around 2.5% in the three-way race and 4% in the two-way head-to-head race (with Kerry within a point of the 50% mark).
As for Gallup, to pin Bush's hope on the outlier poll is real desparation. When Fox News has Bush's job approval at 44%, I wouldn't take much comfort in Gallup's 51%.
Gallup has found the same result twice; that makes it extremely unlikely it's an outlier (about one chance in 400) and a lot more likely that they are using a different turnout model than some of the other national polls. Which turnout model is correct is something we won't know for sure until Nov. 2.
Once again Winston, I appreciate your integrity.
Other than politics, how else do you have fun/
For those interested, I've posted my latest survey of Electoral College tracking / prediction / projection / forecast sites here.
Executive summary: of the 37 sites surveyed, 27 show Kerry winning, and 5 others show him ahead. Five sites show Bush winning. Kerry averages around 300 votes.
Michael,
Gallup isn't the only poll with Bush's approval at 51%. Rasmussen also shows his approval remaining steady at 51%, and they show Kerry's lead to be only 1 point. Gallup has a proven track record which I would stack up against the lesser polls antime.
Thanks Ed. I've been following your compilation of projections. That's a lot of work. I usually update mine on Tuesday's, so I just barely miss your weekly compilation.
Does the 75% Probability count the expected 3-6 pt. bounce from the Rep. convention?
Although Gallup has Bush ahead and Rasmussen only down 1-3 before the RNC/911 bounce, I am somewhat concerned by state polling. I googled "state polling" from Bush/Gore 2000 and found that the last polls had Gore leading Bush by 5-6 in Florida, 2-3 in Ohio, and by 4 in Missouri! I would not get too upset about these early state polling results, but fellow Bush supporters should use it as a motivational tool.
No, the probability is only as good as the polling that is available. So, it is as of today, not as of Nov 4.
Lavrenty Beria:
"In Palm Beach County alone there are a net fifty thousand newly registered democrats."
Talk about a selective use of statistics! According to the Florida Department of State website, the Republicans have a net 44,000 improvement over the Democrats statewide since 2000. I believe that is more relevant to who will win the state's electoral votes, than cherry-picking one county favorable to the Democrats. Oh, and just to correct your figures, the net improvement for the Democrats in Palm Beach County is 17,000, not 50,000.
"The only way Dubya carries Fla. is for widescale voter fraud to happen."
Well, I guess that gives you a built-in excuse, then. If Kerry wins, it's fair and square. If Bush wins, you're already on record as saying it's because he's cheated.
--Continued in next post--
--Continued from previous--
"I don't remember those same claims being made with respect to Jeb's 2002 re-election. In 2002 the DNC did not commit huge resources to defeat Jeb because in 2002 the DNC was still neutered."
You're kidding, right? Go do a Google search on Terry McAuliffe's comments from 2002. "This one is extra special. We will commit whatever resources it takes," McAuliffe said of defeating Jeb Bush. He cited that the party wanted "revenge for 2000" and wanted to "inflict pain" on George W. by beating his brother. He categorically made "defeating Jeb Bush as the party's No. 1 priority".
--Concluded in next post--
--Concluded from previous--
"After all, the DNC would've used a "huge commitment of resources" to ensure Max Cleland's re-election."
Cleland wasn't thought to be in serious trouble until the final two or three weeks of the campaign, when Chambliss tightened the race considerably -- mostly due to his outstanding performances in the debates. The loss caught Democrats by such surprise that some still claim it happened only by GOP vote fraud (tampering with the Diebold machines).
BryanH:
Please assist me my fellow American. As I write this I'm viewing the Fla. Dept. of State website: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/
...affiliation.asp. I don't see the data you speak of. I see a pie chart that indicates that there's a net 448k Democrats registered in Fla. over Reps. as of June 2004.
Additionally, what else did you expect Terry MacAuliffe to say. And in any case, like I stated above, by November 2002 the Democrats were stilled cowed. We're not cowed now; we're pissed.
Finally, Max Cleland voted against Dubya's version of the Homeland Security bill because, for no purpose other than to gut unions, it did not include civil service protection for 175k non-essential security personnel. The "honorable" GOP advisors in GA. used that as an excuse to accuse Cleland of supporting OBL and Saddam. It was the same smear campaign that was used against McCain in South Carolina with respect to his Bangladeshi adopted daughter and what is happening now about Kerry's war experience.
Freeper integrity persists.
Lavrenty Beria: Looks like you found more up-to-date registration numbers than I did. I was going by Feb. 2004 numbers. In any event, it's still showing an improvement for Republicans since 2000.
In November 2000, the Democrats had a 372,843 registration advantage. According to the pie chart you've linked, in June 2004, the Democrats had a 357,454 advantage (I'm not sure how you get your 448K figure).
That's a statewide improvement of 15,000 for the Republicans since 2000.
BryanH: You are correct, my numbers were off. I subtracted 3,652,000 from 4,010,000 and the correct result is 358k, not 448k. I believe that I transposed a digit, meaning that I subtracted 3,562,000 from 4,010,000. That would account for my 90k error.
I respect the fact that you checked my work. That means you're a person for whom facts matter. That confuses the sh!t out of me!!! How can two bright guys, like you and Winston, not think of Dubya as a doofus.
By the way, my bona fides are good. I voted for Reagan over Mondale. I voted for G.H.W. Bush over Dukakis. I voted for G.H.W. Bush over Clinton. For me its about Dubya. He's an embarrassment.
Please BryanH, you obviously have the intellect, please allow it to overcome your ideology.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/
1...thustling.shtml
SP Times is reporting that through June, the Dems have added 50,000 more voters to the Florida rolls than Repubs. Not sure of the origin of these numbers though.
Bryan's numbers are since November 2000. The StP article doesn't quite say, but it looks like they're talking about just since the beginning of 2004. Thus, both Bryan the the StP numbers could be right: the GOP could have a net advantage since the last presidential election, AND the Dems could have an advantage in voters registered since the beginning of 2004.
Gallup is an outlier, plain and simple:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm
Maybe Gallup is an outlier, maybe it isn't. It's tends to vary from the mean less than does Zogby, which is much more pro-Kerry than other pollsters.
Gallup is correct...but even if they have overstated Bush support by 3-4 points this is before the RNC!!! Dukakis was up 17 at this time in the election cycle. History tells us that Bushes gain 25 over Massasschusetts paleoliberals from this time to election day.
Dukakis was not running against an incumbent President whose approval ratings were in the low to mid 40s.
Try again.
drfranklives - Even you have to admit all the approval averages show Bush at 47 - 48% approval, before his convention. A couple over 50%, a few in the low 40s like Zogby. By the way, Bush was ahead of Gore by 16 points on 8/11/2000 right after the RNC, I think Bush can make up a 2pt deficit if Gore could make up 16. And don't go to the undecided card, the same Gallup poll that had Bush up 16 points only had 3% undecided, very similar to the 2 - 3% undecided right now. If Bush can't get a 5 - 8 point bounce out of his convention and be up 5 by Labor Day he deserves to lose, it means he couldn't communicate to independents a reason to re-elect him. Should be fun to watch.
I've still not seen a recent poll will approval as a net negative. Gallup has Bush +6 and Rasmussen has Bush hovering between +2 and +6. To say that Rasmussen is Republican leaning is not true, their polls include a sample that is 3% more Democratic than Republican, in accordance with the turnout of the 2000 election. This does not take into account post 9/11 gains in Repub party affilition. The Dems, albeit, have made some gains in 2004 but have not made up the difference. Any poll that shows Kerry ahead big, like that notorious May LA Times poll, is using a twisted turnout model. I trust Gallup, Rasmussen, and NBC/WSJ the most.
Have you people not learned yet that previous "golden rules" don't mean squat in this election?
For instance, the oft-cited "growth over 2.6% = reelection" means nothing, because that kind of growth has traditionally meant job growth. Not any more.
IN the past, the most well-financed primary candidate emerged with the nomination. Not this year.
In the past, the challenger's convention boosted him an average od 12 points. Not this year (Kerry got about 8, but only in battleground states with large numbers of undecideds).
This is the election after (1) an unelected President and (2) a major terrorist attack and (3) stagflation setting in.
History means zilch this time around.
Throw out your numbers. How many likely voter models include heavy under-30 turnout? Not many, I venture to say. We're going to win this election on youth turnout. It's either vote for Kerry or get drafted. That's the choice.
It's either vote for Kerry or get drafted. That's the choice.
That would make a good add. Call George Soros.
Stagflation = High inflation, hi interest rates. Not the case today. You are thinking of the Carter Administration.
Not "add". "Ad". Sheesh.
Stagflation? Unelected President? High youth turnout for Kerry? I think drfranklives is living in ficticious times.
I think that as long as the Fliper keeps yapping about Vietnam Bush will win. This swift boat thing isnt going away anytime soon.
Besides. I am waiting for the Kerry meltdown. Just like Deans. I can see it now.
Just what are libs going to do when the Bushan wins a 2nd term. I wonder if the suicide rate in San Fran will go up.
Will-
Are you hoping the the suicide rate in San Fran goes up?
If so, why?
I am waiting for the suicide rate to rise. In fact I have planned to Nuke the San Andreas fault to destroy the liberal holdouts of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Give me beach front property.
You are invited to check the sites about credit cards credit cards http://www.easy-application-credit-cards.com/ debt consolidation debt consolidation http://www.e-debt-consolidation-loans.com/ gambling gambling http://www.reachcasino.com/ online poker online poker http://online-poker.reachcasino.com/ student credit cards student credit cards http://www.alumnicards.com/ mortgage l
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
