Kerry 234 Bush 280

Granted Florida and PA switched when he used a Rasmussen poll which is very conservative about Bush... and I've long said I think he down plays Bush by 3-4 points... but come on, get your shit together people!

I think Florida is still our's... PA I don't know.  Those guys in Florida really need to be pounding the pavement.  The regression analysis for all the polls with a final projection still shows Florida and Pennsylvania going to Bush with this being the final projection.



FINAL PROJECTION... Kerry 192 Bush 336

Mrs.G... the beauty of that projection is it takes all the polls conducted to date in all the states... Rasmussen, Zogby, Opinion Dynamics, Mason Dixon, Harris, Gallup, Survey USA... etc and plots them all on an XY axis and then performs a regression analysis to predict with probably a 95% certainty where the final results will be.  Now there is 5 weeks left, that is plenty of time for something happen to change the outcome.  Regression analysis assumes no major deviations and a continuation of trends.  If trends continue, than what you see on that map is about a 95% certainty.  An October surprise by either side could change things dramatically, and if OH, PA and FL are neck and neck such a surprise could alter the final outcome.

So if you are in those three states, pound the shit out of the pavement and get our leads up!

Coolio, I hope you are wrong, this is the current regression analysis for PA:



This is Florida



This is Ohio



And here is a real surprise... Maryland



Although the data for this regression is sporadic

Quoted: What in the hell happened to Georgia?!  They must have just polled in Cynthia McKinney's district.   I am ashamed that Georgia would ever be anything but solid, dark red.

Rasmussen poll, add three points... still won't change the coloration as it will put it on the cusp of being light red... but Rasmussen uses extremely conservative methodologies that downplay any candidate's lead.

I saw the President at the Lake County Rally a few weeks ago.  He and his family were less than 20 feet away from us.  He was right on target and hit it outada park.  Ben is right, everything outside the Two C's is bush country.

Actually the use of multiple polls cuts both ways... yes it factors in differing methodologies... but it also factors out some of the inherent bias represented in some of those methodologies.  For example, it is pretty well accepted that Zogby's polls are skewed againt the president.  Then there are polls which are skewed toward the president such as Survey USA.  By factoring in a variety of polls over time you can actually eliminate some of the bias.  Hell even polls done by the same firms don't always ask the same questions... so you can't stick to one firm all the time.

However, we're not talking about the nuances of issue positions here in which people are asked right track/wrong track... approve/disapprove.  We are talking about one simple question... if the election were held today, who would you vote for?  Because that is the SINGLE question that forms the basis for the regression, you can use multiple polls.  True, some polls use likely voters and some registered voters... they might have larger or smaller sample sizes, but the one issue they are asking about in common is, "if the election were held today, who would you vote for for president."

I would have a hige problem with plotting say approval of the War in Iraq using multiple polls for the very reason you suggest.  Depending on how the question is asked it will skew the results.  But once again, we aren't dealing with nuances here... its a straight forward question... Bush, Kerry or other...

I so concur, do not fucking get complacent.  I don't care if your state is so red its becoming black... get your ass out there and vote, get your friends registered... contact the party and find out which shut-ins need rides to the polls and get them there.  Fight Fight FIGHT!

I agree its not perfect, yes you do sound nerdy , but I know exactly what you are talking about.  And while this is very unscientific... one of the things we do when formulating campaign strategy in light of a multitude of polls is to go with a gut check.  Yup, you heard it here first... we look at the various polls, we take our past experience with the various pollsters, combine it with our observations of the electorate in question, and we make a damn good guess as to what to do... and the campaign that makes the best guesses usually wins.

I believe in polls as snapshots of the electorate's mood.  Because the electorate is so diverse, your sample size is never going to be representative enough... even when you weight the sample to reflect what you feel the respresentation should be in terms of demographic make-up.  Pure statistical analysis will never be completely accurate... hell I know several statisticians who firmly believe that statistical analysis has no place in politics until after the election as a means to understand what happened... never as a means to predict.

And the one issue I disagree with you on Paeber is using the trendlines for the same polls as a predictor.  As I mentioned, unless the polls are using the same questions, same sample size, same weighting, etc... this isn't going to be much better.  Look at the Pew poll that had the president up 14 after the convention... their next poll had the president up 12... they thought that was too high, so they revamped the questions, came up with a new methodology for their sample, recanvassed... and low and behold, the 12 point lead is now 1 point.  Unfortunately, there does not exist a poll that provides the type of polling integrity you and I crave.  In light of the games some firms play... I do feel the regression provided at electoral-vote is useful, imperfect as it is, as it will tend to mitigate some of the outliers.  But that is just one of those unscientific gut checks that comes from campaign work versus real statistical analysis.

What I think is happening is Kerry's people are waiting for the numbers to roll out and then campaigning to them... in other words... if the polls show confidence in the economy is lagging, that is the message they will seize upon in an effort to exploit it.  Bush's people are doing the exact opposite, the have staked out their issues and are hitting them hard and watching the polls to see if that issue is indeed resonating... and refining rather than moving from issue to isse... which is why Kerry is seen as indecisive, pessimistic and a flip-flopper while Bush seems to be steady and has greater integrity.

NOW LISTEN UP MAGGOTS!  YOU DO WHAT PAEBER SAYS AND GET YOUR ASSES TO WORK!

BBQ, I have no explanation for MD... I would love to see it happen... maybe its a bunch of federal employees who may not be Republican but see that Bush is actually trying to protect this country.

Max, that is an extremely valid point... because of evacuations they can only reach certain parts of the state... that and mass phone service outages put many more out of touch.

Glad they pay the nerds well... Republican operatives are poorly paid, unless you are at the upper echelons.  Hell, I'm lucky if I can get my clients to pay half the time... local races always seem to squander the campaign money on ad buys and try to fund raise to cover consultant fees AFTER the race has been lost...  That's why most of us have day jobs, we figure we won't ever see a living from doing this alone... although the networking becomes invaluable.

So, what are these models that predicted the electoral vote before the election in the past 18 out of 20 races?  I'd love to dive into these!

Shooter, I'd love to see those models if you stumble across them... no rush.

As for how Kerry's team is operating, I can't explain it any other way.  They have gotten a little more disciplined since some of the Clinton folks came on board... at least in terms of Kerry delivering the message and creating sound bites... but I still think it is the wrong message and they are letting the polls determine what they say on any given day.  You can note that their campaign is purely reactive, which is a huge mistake... you never allow the incumbent to define the playing field... which Bush has done.  In fact, what Bush has done is absolutely brilliant and has only allowed Kerry two choices... well three, but I'll show why its two... and in fact really one.

He can agree with Bush on the apporach to the war on terror.  This will secure him some of the middle ground and retain some of the democrats who are defecting to Bush.  However, in doing so he risks losing the Dean supporters who already view him as suspect and may well vote Nader or not vote if they view Kerry as being pro-war.

He can move to the right of Bush and be the uber-hawk... this most assuredly would lose him the left vote, but could pick up some of the Greatest Generation who would find his social agenda appealing as well as his tough stance on terrorism.  He wouldn't pull many Republicans from Bush, but he could once again capture some of those moderate and conservative democrats who had defected.

He can move to the left and question Bush at every turn on the war... deployments, equipment, rules of engagement, allies... Basically attempt to kill him with a thousand paper cuts.  In doing so he will maintain his left... hold the Anybody Bush crowd and probably not lose any more support than he already has from conservative and moderate democrats.  It is safe territory in the sense that he need not worry about Bush moving into that realm.  Kerry knows he has lost too many votes to Bush on prescription drugs, education, tax cuts... He needs to pick an issue and position that is clearly his... so now we have the anti-war Kerry... quagmire, 1,000 deaths, beheadings, elections threatened, Allawi is a liar...

Essentially Bush only left him one area to stake out, which is exactly where Bush wants him... the liberal left New England Gazillionaire who wants to raise taxes, take your guns, give your money to other people, cave to the unions and trial lawyers...  Kerry is just too damn dumb to realize that his flip flopping early on has painted him into a corner... now he must defend that position with his dying breath, any deviation will just further erode his numbers.

You know, this is going to sound corny... but Bush's political kung-fu is strong... well at least Rove's and Hughes's are.