Electoral Vote Predictor 2004- Page 9

[feinstein9]

Posted: 10/3/04 at 1:43am

noooo this isn't over! no we aren't through- no there's still a chance of more states turning blue!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/4/04 at 12:56pm

October 4 - Kerry 243 Bush 295

From ew.com: Bush-Kerry debate scores high ratings. Almost 63 million people watched President Bush spar with Sen. John Kerry Thursday night...most-watched debate since 1992 -- only about 46 million people watched the first debate between Bush and Al Gore in 2000.
Source: http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,709209_10_0_,00.html

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 3:07am

October 7 - Kerry 253 Bush 264

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 8:23am

October 8 - Kerry 280 Bush 239

Please let this continue.

[Mattio98]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 1:06pm

Cue the singing angels.

[mominator]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 1:19pm

Remember folks the ONLY way this can come true is for YOU to get out there and vOTE!

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 1:35pm

And if you're in Florida - use an absentee ballot. I don't trust the new machines without anyway to do a recount. They were built by a republican who has stated he would do anything to get Bush reelected.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 10/8/04 at 1:43pm

I'm not sure if any of you saw on the news this week in Florida. There were record numbers of people registering to vote on college campuses and at one particular school it was suspiciously noted that more than 90% of those forms turned had the Republican box checked. Upon investigation, the people registering neglected to check an affiliation box, and someone else did it for them.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/10/04 at 9:18pm

October 10: Kerry 270 Bush 248

[lovettespies]

Posted: 10/10/04 at 9:36pm

YES! WOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[feinstein9]

Posted: 10/11/04 at 12:36am

and now, the BWW chorus singing... GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 11:28am

From today's Slate.com:

====

on the trail Dispatches from Campaign 2004.

Kerry's Poll Position
The campaign argues that he's not really behind.
By Chris Suellentrop
Posted Sunday, Oct. 17, 2004, at 10:04 PM PT

PALM BEACH, Fla.—John Kerry's campaign professes to be unconcerned about the multiple national polls that have shown a small but discernible downward movement for the Democratic nominee since the third presidential debate. But the campaign's studied nonchalance doesn't extend to how the press covers the polls. During Sunday's flight from Columbus, Ohio, to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., reporters on the Kerry plane receive a "Polling Update," a two-page explanation of how the campaign would like us to view the latest public polls. The very first sentence: "The race is tied."

The abbreviated Kerry spin: 1) Bush pollster Matthew Dowd told the Austin American-Statesman on March 21 that "presidents finish roughly the same as their job approval rating." Zogby has Bush's job approval at 47, Newsweek has it at 47, and Time has it at 49. 2) Among registered voters, the Zogby, Newsweek, and Time polls show a statistical tie. (The release doesn't mention it, but the same is true for the just-released Gallup Poll. President Bush leads Kerry among likely voters by 8 points, 52-44, but among registered voters it's Bush 49, Kerry 46, with a 3 percent margin of error.) 3) Kerry's ahead in the battleground states, which is what really matters.

The release isn't internally consistent. It treats Kerry's narrow deficit in national polls differently than his narrow lead in state polls: Kerry's one-point shortfall among registered voters in the Newsweek poll is called a tie, but Kerry's two-point leads in Minnesota and Pennsylvania are "consistent with repeated polls showing a Kerry edge." That, of course, is the Bush campaign's argument at the national level: Every poll released since the third debate has shown a Bush lead of between two points and eight points.

Until Sunday, that is. A new Democracy Corps poll conducted by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg shows the race as a statistical tie, but this time it's Kerry who has the higher horse-race number, 50 to Bush's 47, with a three-point margin of error. Greenberg and Joe Lockhart held a conference call to trumpet the results. The Kerry plane was in the air at the time, but the campaign released a transcript of the call. The message: At the third debate, Kerry consolidated his base. He gained among African Americans and union households. Greenberg calls this a "one-time consolidation of Democrats that is not going to be easily eroded."

Lockhart dismisses the Newsweek poll's fluctuations over the course of the past two months: "It's just not credible. The electorate has not swung 20 percent, from 13 down to one up to eight down. It's just not what's happening in the electorate, so it's just not something we take very seriously." Lockhart also emphasizes that in the 2000 election, polls of registered voters were more accurate than polls of likely voters. That echoes Ruy Texeira's Emerging Democratic Majority Weblog, which lately exists to argue that Kerry isn't doing as badly in the polls as he seems. And Lockhart emphasizes what Al Gore discovered: "This election is not going to take place nationally. It's going to take place in the battleground states."

Which raises the obvious question: Could Kerry win the presidency but lose the popular vote? At Daily Kos, political scientist Tom Schaller says it's unlikely but possible, particularly because Kerry is underperforming Gore's numbers in blue states, including Massachusetts and New Jersey. If that's not far-fetched enough for you, here's a scenario I discovered while playing with the Los Angeles Times' electoral map: Bush wins Ohio, Florida, and Colorado. Kerry sweeps the rest of the battleground: Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The result: a 269-269 tie. Democrats cry that Bush gets "selected" again, this time by the House of Representatives. Maybe that's the kind of trick fate plays when you nominate a fan of the Boston Red Sox.

Chris Suellentrop is Slate's deputy Washington bureau chief. You can e-mail him at [e-mail].

Kerry's Poll Position

[beachie]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 11:44am

A friend who is heavily involved in campaigning for the Democratic Party brought an interesting facet about telephone polls to my attention. Her contention was they are missing a large segment of the young adult population specifically the ones who neither own a phone or who's only phone is cellular. She showed me the new voter listings and it was surprising that almost half had no phone listing.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 11:58am

October 19: Kerry 284 Bush 247
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004

Posted: 10/19/04 at 12:43pm

I've not read this thread, but I will make a comment that is related:

I belive the current system that gives ALL the electoral votes the state has to the winner of the popular vote within that state is flawed.

First remember this: The number of electors is the number of members of Congress (both houses) the state has. So Wyoming has three. One Representative, two Senators. I'm not sure how Washington, DC works.

I think that the winner of the popular vote within each Congressional District should get that ONE electoral vote and give the state-wide winner of the popular vote the +2 bonus (representing the Senators)

My reasoning is this: I used to live in the 10th district of Illinois. VERY Republican. Carried by Bush by a LARGE margin in 2000. But, the over-all vote went to Gore, so those people in the 10th district basically had no voice.

Does that seem right?

Imagine you (a reader of this thread who is a suporter of Kerry) lived in a Congressional District that was likely to vote for Kerry, but the REST of your state was largely conservative. That would mean you and your neighbors would have no say, and basically no reason to vote.

My suggested change would not help or hurt either party in the long run, it would make things more fair to the voters.

The Electoral College system can NOT be removed entirely as many people have said, because it is a 'safety net' that prevents the people from electing an completely unsuitable person. Remember, Adolph Hitler was a very good public speaker and a lot of Germans thought he was a great idea at the time.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 12:53pm

I think the Electoral College system sucks, too. I say that having lived in Texas where my vote didn't count. I say that living in NYC where I know that papa and other Repub friends of mine's votes doesn't count.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 1:40pm

I agree...

Another scenario...there a chance that folks here in Chicago, who would vote for Kerry, don't even bother to vote because they know that Kerry will carry the entire state.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 1:43pm

Neither party can afford that in this "anything can happen" election.

I wouldn't be shocked to see a hardcore red or blue state out there swing the opposite way by surprise. Then again, things could go predictably in those states--but who knows?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 1:53pm

Remember that with the electoral college, some electors can vote anyway they want, they don't have to vote the way the population votes. There are 26 states that mandate the electors must vote the popular vote. But the other 24 can vote however they like.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 1:57pm

And THAT is really screwed up. Too bad that didn't happen last time.

Posted: 10/19/04 at 2:11pm

WELL.... that's what was GOING to happen in Florida last time, but the Supreme Court intervined trying to reduce the amount of backlash that the Electors of Florida voting for Bush regardless of popular vote would've caused.


And... Kerry could NOT carry Illinois without Chicago. Specifically without Jessie Jackson giving people a carton of cigareets to vote the way he tells them to.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 2:45pm

You are such a classist, racist pig. No wonder the rest of the Republicans on this board won't associate themselves with your idiocy.

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 3:26pm

That's it. Goodbye folks!

My life is way to busy to listen to this type of hate-mongering.

Rodney, you are an absolute as*-hole. Nobody and I mean nobdy deserves that type of response! Updated On: 10/19/04 at 03:26 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/19/04 at 3:40pm

Don't you go anywhere, WAG. I adore you and your hairy chest even more than RodneyK lusts after me (ergo his homosexual panic posts). I can take anything Eric, I mean Rodney, dishes out. But he really can't take it at all.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/20/04 at 2:44pm

October 20: Kerry 291 Bush 247
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004