|
Special Auster election analysis show Kerry still in running
Republicans, according to their popular bloggers such as the Kerry Spot, are confident, while many Democrats, according to theirs, such as Marshall, are depressed. This optimism and pessimism seem to be based on the overall national poll results, which have been showing Bush steadily ahead by several points. But of course it’s not the national popular vote that elects the president. As I continue my arbitrarily selected punditry method of combining Rasmussen’s overall state by state electoral vote projections with Zogby’s polling numbers in individual states as summarized at RealClearPolitics.com, I find that it still looks promising for Kerry. Rasmussen places 222 votes in the Bush column, and 186 electoral votes in the Kerry column. That’s down 21 for Kerry from the other day (I think because Rasmussen moved Pennsylvania, with its 21 votes, from the Kerry column to the toss-up column), or a 36-vote Bush advantage. But if we look at Zogby’s polling for the toss-up states, Kerry is now leading in Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10),and Michigan (17). Some of these leads are very small, inside the margin of error, and obviously have no predictive value. Nevertheless, the numbers indicate that Kerry is at least in the running in those states. If he carries them all on Tuesday, while keeping all the states that Rasmussen currently projects for him, he gets 271 electoral votes and the presidency. It remains entirely possible that Kerry could lose the popular vote yet win the election.
Meanwhile, Richard Lowry suggests that even if Bush loses the Republican must-have state of Ohio, he may make it up in the traditionally Democratic strongholds of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa, because of economic and cultural changes taking place in those states. Comments
Zogby rose to fame in the media capital of Utica by having the most accurate results of any ’90s pollster. All the others were adding a few percentage points to the Democrats. Now Zogby’s competition skews toward the Republicans. Does this mean Zogby’s lost his touch? That the other pollsters are overcompensating for their 1990s misfires? Or is it a pro-Kerry tactic, to gin up Democratic turnout through fear? Posted by: Reg Cæsar on October 31, 2004 1:05 AMZogby’s 2002 state by state polls were terrible. His state by state polling numbers this year have even looked worse than 2002 ! His National poll in 2000 though; was of course dead on the money. To sum it up: I don’t trust his state by state numbers. The Battlegound, or Mason-Dixon polls have a much better history than Zogby in the state by state races. Posted by: j.hagan on October 31, 2004 1:32 AMThe only difference I can see in Mason-Dixon compared to Zogby is that Mason-Dixon puts Bush ahead in Florida and Minnesota. But it’s only by one point in each of those states, a statistical tie. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6363705/ Posted by: Lawrence Auster on October 31, 2004 1:59 AMI of course am pointing out Zogby’s last several years of state polling in totality. His state polls this year have had a larger vote spread, or swing, built into them than any others I have seen. Posted by: j.hagan on October 31, 2004 2:05 AMTonight Mason-Dixon has Bush up by 4 points in Florida, and 2 points in Ohio. Of course this thing is still io close to call. Posted by: j.hagan on October 31, 2004 2:12 AMCorrection from my last comment. Mason-Dixon shows Bush ahead by four percentage points in Florida. They also show Kerry ahead by one point in New Hampshire (4 electoral votes). Here’s the page with their full chart of the toss-up states: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6369953/ So, applying the same rather arbitrary but handy technique I used with Zogby, I’d have to say that if Kerry carries the toss-up states in which he currently leads, no matter how tiny or even statistically insignificant that lead is; in other words, if Kerry wins Pennsylvania (21), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (17), and New Hampshire (4), he would get 186 plus 52 equals 238 electoral votes, 32 short of the 270 needed to win. So, Kerry must get Florida (where Mason-Dixon shows Bush ahead by 4) plus five votes elsewhere to win the election. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on October 31, 2004 2:24 AMNow…..add in the fact that Republicans do not poll well on weekends, and the OBL tape has yet to be factored in……would this not suggest that Bush is in better shape than it seems ? Posted by: j.hagan on October 31, 2004 2:29 AMI’d say it remains an extremely close election—much too close for Republican pundits to be feeling triumphalist. All other things remaining the same, Kerry just needs to close the four-point gap in Florida and the statistically insignificant one-point gap in Minnesota to win. Heading into the 2000 election, most people thought Bush would win; the Gore surge came as a surprise. I can’t remember an election in my lifetime that, prior to the election, seemed as close as this. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on October 31, 2004 2:33 AMI’m only going with my gut here……but I think it breaks for Bush by 3 to 4 points on Tuesday. I think Bush gets Ohio and Florida, like 2000, and that’s the ballgame. It looks like Bush is going to lose my home State of NH though. We have a weak Republican Governor up here that is pulling down the Republican ticket. Funny thing, Bush backed this weak Governor last time, who is worth billions, because W43 got some serious cash for him……and let a strong, decent conservative, former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey go down the drain in the Governor’s race. Posted by: j.hagan on October 31, 2004 2:46 AM |