Electoral College Prediction and Analysis (long and detailed)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you might want to replace the word expect with the word hope or pray for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, let me think about it......nope I dont want to. The GOP knows this group didnt show up in 2000. They are confident this year that they will. Is it a certainty? Close to it I think.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you might want to replace the word expect with the word hope or pray for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, let me think about it......nope I dont want to. The GOP knows this group didnt show up in 2000. They are confident this year that they will. Is it a certainty? Close to it I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, it is close to a certainty that the GOP is confident that the evangelicals will turn out.

[banditdad]

[ QUOTE ]
This election would be a blowout if it weren't for one decision by President Bush. That's the decision to invade Iraq. At the time of invasion, Bush was still enjoying job approval rates in excess of 70%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good analysis. However I disagree with the above. The only thing keeping Bush in the race is his invasion of Iraq and the war on terrorism. If there had been no 9/11 attack Bush would be far behind at this point. I also think that if Bush had kept his eye on the ball after 9/11 and gone after Bin Laden rather than a foolish invasion of Iraq based on neo-con fantasy he'd be way ahead at this point.

Of course my crystal ball is no better than the next guys.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
This election would be a blowout if it weren't for one decision by President Bush. That's the decision to invade Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Colin Powell got overruled by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


People keep saying this as if it were gospel. Its not. It didnt break that way in the last 3 incumbent re-elections. In the last 3 elections it didnt break this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it did:

[ QUOTE ]
There have been four incumbent presidential elections in the past quarter-century. If we take an average of the final surveys conducted by the three major networks and their partners, we find that in three of these the incumbent fell short of or merely matched his final poll number, while exceeding it only once, and then by just a single point (Ronald Reagan). On average, the incumbent comes in half a point below his final poll result.

The numbers for challengers look quite different. In every case, the challenger(s) -- I include Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 -- exceed their final poll result by at least 2 points, and the average gain is 4 points. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received 51 percent, fully 6 percentage points above his final poll results.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an average net gain of 4.5% for the challenger.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=8694

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
The winner of this election is going to be the side which turns out the vote better. I'm giving the nod to Bush and Rove since the voters they targeted are more likely to vote and more likely to vote for Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]
The first statement is spot-on. The second, well, I'm not sure I understand why you think that. I don't think that "the evangelicals who didn't show up in 2000" (not your phrase, a subsequent poster's, but the same group you were pointing to, I believe) are an X-factor, they're not an unknown quantity; they've been sampled and represented in the polls as they stand--and even so, the candidates are in a virtual dead heat. So the polls already take into account those Bush supporters; however, the polls under-represent new and young voters. Zogby conducted a survey of 18-29 year-olds who exclusively use cell-phones (without landlines, this demographic was entirely ignored in other polls), and found an overwhelming 55%-40% advantage for Kerry.

And then there's that 8-point lead Kerry currently enjoys in Florida after THIRTY-PERCENT of ALL registered voters have already voted. I wonder how Bush is going to overcome that...

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are correct. I hope you aren't thought. We'll see tomorrow (maybe...)!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with Dynasty, although his analysis is extremely well written.

Here's why I disagree. In the ten most recent national polls, President Bush is not at 50% in any of them. Not a single one. For an incumbent president, this is very troubling on the eve of the election.

But, as we know, the election will be settled in nine battleground states. In those states, there have been 57 polls in the past four days. President Bush is above 50% in 3 out of those 57 polls. Once again, this is very ominous for an incumbent.

I think Kerry gets there with over 300 electoral votes.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Kerry gets there with over 300 electoral votes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the chances of Kerry not simply winning, but winning going away, are looking better and better.

[MMMMMM]

As usual.

[largeeyes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you are correct. I hope you aren't thought. We'll see tomorrow (maybe...)!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with Dynasty, although his analysis is extremely well written.

Here's why I disagree. In the ten most recent national polls, President Bush is not at 50% in any of them. Not a single one. For an incumbent president, this is very troubling on the eve of the election.

But, as we know, the election will be settled in nine battleground states. In those states, there have been 57 polls in the past four days. President Bush is above 50% in 3 out of those 57 polls. Once again, this is very ominous for an incumbent.

I think Kerry gets there with over 300 electoral votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

300? That leaves bush with at, 240? The odds on that are like +260. If you are serious and think that, plenty of money to be made.......but you just threw that out there and don't really buy it, right?