Pre-RNC Electoral College: Kerry 249, Bush 232, Tied 57

[Dynasty]

Somebody linked this excellent Electoral College website (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) in a thread several weeks ago. The person who runs it appears to keep it updated with every new state poll. While you can disagree with exactly how the site uses the terms "Strong, Weak, and Barely", it still gives an excellent overall feel for where the election stands.

Prior to the start of the Republican Convention, the Electoral College stood like this:

Kerry- 249
Bush- 232
Tied- 57 (Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado)

It will be interesting to see what kind of an Electoral College bounce President Bush gets rather than looking at the national poll bounce which will be all over the news.

[wacki]

Cool site. I wonder why the RNC is in New York. California is worth twice as much and there is a much better chance of him actually winning that state since it is a "Weak Kerry" than New York which is a "Strong Kerry". It doesn't make sense to me. Florida would be even better since its tied. I know NY has WTC and all, but still.

[Cyrus]

. . . George W Bush.

I disagree with a lot of the model's assumptions but then you'd have guessed this!

Thanks to Dr Kim Lee for the link.

"[T]here is a historical bias in favor of the Republicans ... Second, there is a duration effect. If a party has been in power at least twice in a row, it has a harder time getting reelected. Other things being equal, voters want a change. The other incumbency effect that is important is if the President is running for reelection. This has a positive effect on votes for the President. The best possible incumbency situation is for a Republican President to run for reelection when the Republicans have only been in power for one term. Bush ... is in this best possible incumbency situation."



Ray Fair's model (http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2004/index2.htm)

[jdl22]

Pennsylvania being a tie is interesting. I've never seen a poll that has anything but Kerry ahead by at least a few points. Normally it's within the standard error but it is the same for Oregon for example.

Also, as people have said here Tennessee for Kerry is interesting. Seems unlikely.

[Dynasty]

Here's another Electoral College pojection site.

http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

The site is pro-Bush but I doubt that's going to cause biased reporting. He's using some tools to project election results beyond just the standard Bush XX%/Kerry XX% polls.

[jdl22]

Thanks for the links. These are much more interesting than just the national polls which don't matter anyway.

On that last site I found this interesting:
[ QUOTE ]
Job Approval:

Approve: 50.0% up 2.0% from 48.0%

* Approve: 51% Time 08/26/04
* Approve: 49% Gallup 08/25/04
* Approve: 51% Fox News 08/25/04
* Approve: 47% NBC - WSJ 08/24/04
* Approve: 52% LA Times 08/24/04


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't seem to jive with:
[ QUOTE ]

Right Track / Wrong Direction:

Pos: 38.3% - Neg: 52.3% margin up 0.3 at -14.0%

* Right Track: 36% - Wrong Track: 50%
NBC - WSJ 08/24/04
* Right Track: 40% - Wrong Track: 52%
LA Times 08/24/04
* Right Track: 39% - Wrong Track: 55%
CBS News 08/18/04

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that about 10% do not think "we are on the right track" but none the less approve of Bush's job performance. Am I reading this wrong?

[GWB]

This Week's Polls
FoxNews Opinion Dynamics (Bush 43 | Kerry 44)
Investor’s Business Daily (Bush 43 | Kerry 43)
NBC News / Wall Street Journal (Bush 47 | Kerry 45)
CNN / USA Today / Gallup (Bush 48 | Kerry 46)
Time Mag (Bush 46 | Kerry 44)
ABC News / Washington Pos (Bush 48 | Kerry 48)
LA Times (Bush 47 | Kerry 44)
Rasmussen Week Average (Bush 47 | Kerry 46.1)
Iowa Electronic Vote Share Market (Bush 50 | Kerry 49.2)


Last Week's Polls
Harris (Bush 47 | Kerry 47)
CBS (Bush 45 | Kerry 46)
Rasmussen Week Average (Bush 46.4 | Kerry 47.7)
Iowa Electronic Vote Share Market (Bush 50.1 | Kerry 49.5)

source: <a href="http://www.federalreview.com" target="_blank">http://www.federalreview.com (http://www.federalreview.com/) </a>

[whiskeytown]

I found this little quip to be very interesting...

[ QUOTE ]
Polls have become marketing tools for the candidates. According to www.race2004.net (http://www.race2004.net) "during the 2000 primary race Karl Rove had pollsters call Republican voters in South Carolina asking if John McCain's black baby born out outside of his marriage influenced their decision on whether to support him. The question was not only racist, it was misleading. McCain and his wife adopted a baby from Bangladesh. The child isn't black in the "traditional" sense, and the baby was born outside his marriage because he was adopted."

[/ QUOTE ]

if that doesn't comment on the quality of people inside the white house right now...nothing does.

RB

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Pennsylvania being a tie is interesting. I've never seen a poll that has anything but Kerry ahead by at least a few points.

[/ QUOTE ]

The latest updates on the site now has Bush in the lead in Pennsylvania 47-45 (Nader 1%). Bush has also taken a 48-44 lead in Florida (Nader 2%).

Bush has pulled ahead in the Electoral College vote 280-242 (16 tied).

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
The latest updates on the site now has Bush in the lead in Pennsylvania 47-45 (Nader 1%). Bush has also taken a 48-44 lead in Florida (Nader 2%).

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the link too the last 30 polls in PA. Bush is up in 3 of the last 20. Also, As of now Nader is out in PA.

Pennsylvania Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/pa_polls.html )

Another Battleground State Poll from the WSJ

WSJ by Zogby (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-frameset.html)

[cardcounter0]

This is the first you heard about the "McCain Black Baby SMEAR"? I guess in about 6 years, we will be getting the SWIFT BOAT LIARS FOR BUSH scoop.

[whiskeytown]

not the first I heard...I know they played dirty.

I just think it's an excellent commentary on the folks in the white house. I EXPECT them to screw the poor and disenfranchised...and I expect dirty play vs. Democrats (like they did to Max McCelland) - but here, they even try to [censored] their own.

great article on Mccain taking it up the you know what for the Republican party here - http://www.alternet.org/election04/19727

RB

[andyfox]

I didn't a few weeks ago. But unless Kerry can make some major impact in the debates, I don't like his chances. Bush is defining the terms of the election and Kerry is reacting. You can't beat an incumbent that way.

[MMMMMM]

"Bush is defining the terms of the election and Kerry is reacting."

Kind of hard for Kerry to define much when he always leaves himself room (or makes room afterwards) to take the other side.

Yesterday I saw a little piece on FNC which said that over the last 100 years, one indicator has had an 80% success rate: if the stock market is higher during the RNC than on Election Day, the challenger will win; if the market is higher on Election Day than during the RNC, the incumbent will win. Bettors may wish to take note.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
I found this little quip to be very interesting...

[ QUOTE ]
Polls have become marketing tools for the candidates. According to www.race2004.net (http://www.race2004.net) "during the 2000 primary race Karl Rove had pollsters call Republican voters in South Carolina asking if John McCain's black baby born out outside of his marriage influenced their decision on whether to support him. The question was not only racist, it was misleading. McCain and his wife adopted a baby from Bangladesh. The child isn't black in the "traditional" sense, and the baby was born outside his marriage because he was adopted."

[/ QUOTE ]

if that doesn't comment on the quality of people inside the white house right now...nothing does.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]
This technique is called "push polling." It was used heavily by Nixon, and even more by the Bush team. Push polling is used in swing areas where massive amounts of calls are made to possible voters.

What is even worse is that push polling can be used without actually lying. For instance, calling someone and saying "if you knew that Candidate ABC has previously been convicted of fraud would you still vote for him?" Note that they didn't actually say that this person was convicted of fraud, they were just asking "what if". But the seeds of doubt have been planted and a negative association has been made. Alot of insinuation, but no actual accusation. Obviously crooked, this tactic is a favorite of the Bush team.

[andyfox]

Shows why I bet on nothing other than poker. Because I would bet on Bush winning (although I already have a wager tkaing Kerry with a 2+2 poster) and on the stock market being lower on election day.

Seriously, though, usually it is "the economy, stupid." But might not this year be different in terms of foreign policy being more important than ever?

[MMMMMM]

Well yes, policy has a great deal of public attention this year, so it ought to weigh more than usual, I would guess.

Also re. the RNC/Election Day stock market levels: the indicator used either the start or the end of the RNC--I couldn't recall which day when I posted, but I now think it was the last day of the RNC that was specified to be compared to the Election Day market level.

[cjromero]

If Kerry loses, he has no one to blame but himself. It was his idiotic decision to make the entire Democratic convention about his four months in Vietnam, despite the fact that the Vietnam War is one of the most controversial topics in American history. When he made the entire thing about Vietnam, he had to know that his military record and all of his anti-war activities would be scrutinized with the strongest of microscopes, combined with the fact that all of the talk about his questionable medals had been going around Washington for years. His entire acceptance speech can be boiled down into "I was born. I served in Vietnam. I now deserve to be President." The fact that he spent less than 30 seconds discussing his 19 years in the Senate is laughable.

The Democrats missed a golden opportunity to make the debate about domestic issues and about GWB's failings. Assuming Bush gives a good speech tomorrow night, Bush may simply have too much momentum for Kerry to recover. Bush is going to get another bounce in the polls following the 9/11 anniversary, and he will certainly come across as more likable in the debates, just like he did against Gore in 2000.

If Kerry can't beat an incumbent who was not elected by a majority of voting Americans in 2000, at a time when the economy is mediocre and at a time when we are in a war that a majority of Americans don't support, then he deserves to lose.

This campaign is starting to look a lot like 2000, when Gore couldn't beat a governor from a state where the legislature only meets every other year, at a time when the country was at peace and following the largest and longest period of economic expansion in recent memory.

I am a Bush supporter (although not a fervent one), but there are credible arguments to be made that Bush should not be re-elected. Unforunately, the person making those arguments is John Kerry.

[andyfox]

I agree with all of your points entirely. This should be an easy win for the Dems, and 2000 should have been so as well.

Kerry is going to spend $45,000,000 on TV ads between now and election day. Hopefully, somebody as clever as Karl Rove will be managing for him. Otherwise, I'm starting to think he's toast.

[elwoodblues]

I don't know if the debates will even help him. The whole Vietnam issue has been such a colossal distraction that I think he's lost too much time to make it up.

[Nepa]

Could this thing be any closer?

Tied (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html)

[El Barto]

Rasmussen Poll Spike for Bush (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm)

Bush reaches 49% for first time since March in their daily tracking poll. Is Bush gettiing a bounce?

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Rasmussen Poll Spike for Bush

Bush reaches 49% for first time since March in their daily tracking poll. Is Bush gettiing a bounce?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shows how quick they update that site, That poll wasn't there this morning, Just the 4 polls in a row that had the race tied.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Rasmussen Poll Spike for Bush (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm)

Bush reaches 49% for first time since March in their daily tracking poll. Is Bush gettiing a bounce?

[/ QUOTE ]

A real pro-Bush bounce will come after the President's speech on Thursday night. I think the polls which are taken over this coming weekend and reported next Monday or Tuesday will be the telling polls. That's when we'll know what the race is like heading down the stretch.

There's something else which is happening. The anit-Kerry 527's have changed gears a bit. They aren't airing as many ads which attack Kerry's activities in Vietnam. Instead, they're attacking an area which I think is much more vulnerable and could do some serious and permanent damage.

The 527's are airing ads which show Kerry's senate testimony in the early '70's (73?) where he describes war crimes commited by his fellow soldiers. This stuff is really brutal and I have no idea how Kerry can defend himself.

These ads aren't some guys saying "bad stuff" about Kerry. The ads are using Kerry's own words and own voice. Kerry is going to be hurt badly by this. A lot of people don't know about his senate testimony.

[Utah]

The ad is playing here in MN. I think the ad is very powerful and that it will have a very negative effect on Kerry.

The ad was powerful for me - and I have read Kerry's testimony and I was well aware of Kerry's post war activities. I can only imagine the effect on someone who wasnt aware of his testimony. The most powerful part is when the veteran pops up and says "Kerry was giving away to the enemy for free what we were being tortured to say" {paraphrase}

[El Barto]

Bush has maintained his 49 to 45 tracking poll lead in today's update. Also, his job approval is up to 54%.

It should be noted that Kerry has been leading by 1 to 3 points fairly consistently for the past month (until about a week ago), so this marks a definite opinion change.

Rasmussen Tracking Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm)

[andyfox]

And yet, Kerry is continuing to harp on his Vietnam service. A terrible blunder IMO. How is its that Michael Moore can mount a better anti-Bush campaign than John Kerry?

I'm beginning to think you can think about what you're going to do with my $100. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Regards,
Andy

[El Barto]

And the news keeps getting worse for Kerry:

TIME Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,692562,00.html)

[tanda]

Wow.

Bush needs to get some separation in light of his pre-convention momentum and good convention. If not, then he is in trouble. If he is still tied in the next ten days, then Kerry has got to be happy. This poll is a sign that Bush will get that separation.

[Gabe]

I just saw the latest Swiftboat 527. It is Kerry saying: "I gave back my medals. Five, six, nine. I don't remember how many."

Medals (http://www.swiftvets.com/)

[ThaSaltCracka]

bump!

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 264 Bush 222
web page (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)

These numbers are startling for me, what happened to the RNC bounce? Republicans, whats going on?

[Nepa]

Could this election come down to Bush winning the popular vote and losing the EC. It seems to me the Bush is gaining mostly in states that he doesn't need gains and Kerry is holding on in the battleground states.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I was surprised to say the least...... that would be very odd if Kerry wins the EC and loses the Popular vote.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 264 Bush 222
web page (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)

These numbers are startling for me, what happened to the RNC bounce? Republicans, whats going on?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's some controversey around the Zogby polls which have consistently given Kerry credit for a couple extra points across the board. If Zogby didn't have such an excellent and well-deserved reputation, I think a lot would be dismissing their results.

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah but this website is not solely Zogby numbers.

[Dynasty]

True. But, Zogby just came out with 16(?) battle ground polls and that's influencing this site's electoral count. All the polls agree about the other 34 states (Texas, California, Massachusetts, etc.).

I'm not saying Zogby is wrong. But, I think it's a reasonable assumption that Zogby's poll are presenting the best-case scenario for Kerry since the other polls are always giving more credit to Bush. Even with those Zogby #'s, Kerry isn't at 270.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah but this website is not solely Zogby numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The website we're discussing (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) updates it's figures with every new poll. Today, the count is at Bush 254, Kerry 243. But, the point is that the new polls which have changed this count show considerably different numbers at times.

Zogby had Missouri at 48.9 - 48.5 in favor of Kerry. The new Gallup poll gives Bush a 55 - 44 lead. It would be stunning if Bush had such a big lead in Missouri. But, all other polls in the last few weeks have given Bush the edge there. So, it casts doubt on the Zogby numbers.

Kerry's 3 point lead in Zogby's Pennsylvania poll has been dropped on that map in favor of Gallup's 48-47 Bush leading poll.

[GWB]

Here's a website of interest:

http://www.federalreview.com/compositepoll.htm

The article on the page discusses the biases of the polls. The LATimes and CBS are more pro-Kerry than Zogby (but they don't come out that often).