More Good News-An Electoral Overview

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Can our long national nightmare soon be over?



Second-to-Last Electoral College Analysis (don't read if you're sick of polls)
by mattb25
Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:27:28 GMT

Time for my second-to-last state poll analysis and electoral college projection (if you're someone who is really tired of poll analysis--and even I am half the time--you probably don't want to read this whole post). Also bear in mind that what follows (at least the numbers part) doesn't account for Osama--who, in my opinion, is highly unlikely to move the race at all, and if he does, it'll be detrimental to Bush. Basically what I've done:

Assigned Bush and Kerry their safe states

Briefly examine five states that are pretty strongly leaning Bush but could conceivably go Kerry: Missouri, Nevada, Colorado, West Virginia & Arkansas

Take a closer look at the nine states that, in my view, are 99% certain to determine the election: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, New Mexico, & New Hampshire. Please note that I DO NOT consider these states toss-ups, like much of the ignorant SCLM does--but they are the states that the campaigns are playing for right now.

More below

Diaries :: mattb25's diary ::

For each of those nine states, I've taken all polls conducted in October and averaged them. I've excluded any partisan polls, Rasmussen polls, and Zogby Interactive--I've used the most recent batch of Zogby's state phone polls.

Generally speaking, whenever I had a choice between RV and LV numbers for a given poll, I took the RV numbers. Additionally, in the states in which Nader was on the ballot and I had a choice between two and three way numbers, I used the two way. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't think there could be third party effects. But, I don't like to use third party poll numbers because I'm of the belief that they very often over-represent the minor candidates by simply listing them as a choice--that is, you'll get some folks who say "Nader" just because they hear a name first or last, or something to that affect, even if they have no intention of voting for Ralph. I'm also of the belief that Bush and Kerry are going to be hurt basically equally by third parties, but not substantially in either case. So really my numbers should be thought of as shares of the two party vote.

In addition to computing the mean averages of the polls for each state, I also calculated the median. The median is an excellent measure for reducing the effects of outliers and for, generally, given a more complete summary of a distribution. In addition, I checked the numbers for outliers (in the statistical sense, margins that fluctuated by 2+ standard deviations from the mean), and re-computed new means and medians minus outlying polls. For certain states, I've allocated undecideds based on varying projections.

****************
Safe Bush: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), Virginia (13), Wyoming (3)

191 Electoral Votes

*Note: if Kerry gains another point or two nationally before Tuesday, or if Dem turnout is truly overwhelming, or if basically all of the undecideds break for Kerry, then Arizona, North Carolina and especially Virginia will come into play, but Kerry will have already won before they do.

Safe Kerry: California (55), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), DC (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New Jersey (15), New York (31), Oregon (7) Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington (11)

*Note: I'm not particularly worried about Hawaii, but am glad that the ad time has been bought and that Gore and Alex Kerry are headed there. No need to take things for granted out there.

190 Electoral Votes

*****************

Strongly Leaning Bush

*NEVADA (5 EV--6 polls)
-Mean: Bush 49.8, Kerry 44.2
-Median: Bush 50.5, Kerry 44.5

Analysis: I've been arguing all along that NV would be one of those huge surprises, that turns blue even if the polling doesn't show it in advance. And I still won't be shocked if Kerry makes a pick up here. I expect turnout to be tremendous and the Yucca issue should be pretty motivating. But, while I generally think that Kerry is under-represented in the polls of Western states (not enough pollsters who speak Spanish, and certainly, the robo-calls don't), the Bush margin here is such that it has to stay as a lean-Bush for now.

Bush 196, Kerry 190

*MISSOURI (11 EV-6 polls)
-Mean: Bush 49.8, Kerry 45.1
-Median: Bush 49, Kerry 45

Analysis: I think MO is competetive, and that it'll be closer than the polling suggests; as with many other states, I think the Dem ground game will make major inroads into Bush's margins. But the fact that the campaigns aren't really allocating any resources here anymore does suggest that even the Kerry camp thinks it's going red.

Bush 207, Kerry 190

*COLORADO (9 EV--9 polls)
-Mean: Bush 49.1, Kerry 44.0
-Median: Bush 49.0, Kerry 44.0

Analysis: Polling all over the map, particularly Zogby. I think that it's close here, and that the Kerry campaign would like to really play for it, but in my view, it's a sound judgment to focus the resources in the upper mid-west. Again, I expect a fantastic ground game, and I think Hispanic turnout increases for Salazar; Nader won't poll close to his 2000 totals. Moreover, CO strikes me as full of paleo-cons as opposed to wingnuts, so it wouldn't surprise me to see a strong Badnarik showing here. Will it be enough? It could be, but I don't think it's quite a toss-up, so I'm giving it to Bush for now.

Bush 216, Kerry 190

*ARKANSAS (6 EV-6 polls)
-Mean: Bush 49.2, Kerry 44.3
-Median: Bush 49.5, Kerry 44.5

Analysis: I don't think it's over here, not by a long shot, and especially with Clinton visiting. I really thought AR was a great pick-up opportunity that wasn't really pursued early this cycle. I do think that's understandable from the campaign's point of view, though, and it'll be close here--but I can't see the election turning on it. I don't think Kerry wins here unless he's already won. I'm giving it to Bush for now, but very reluctantly.

Bush 222, Kerry 190

*West Virginia (5 EV--1 poll)

Analysis: Why this state hasn't been polled more, I have no idea, but obviously one poll isn't nearly enough for any kind of in-depth analysis. The one poll is the right-leaning Mason-Dixon that has it Bush 49, Kerry 44. Obviously, Dems enjoy a tremendous registration advantage here--it's great to see Byrd getting active, and from everything I hear anecdotally, the ground game on our side is far superior to the Thugs'. The DNC has shown some recent interest in getting back in the game here, which leads me to believe that it's tight in the internal polling. I think it's close to a toss-up. But since I'm not leaving any toss-ups on the board--if you held a gun to my head, I'd say Bush wins a squeaker.

Bush 227, Kerry 190

*****************

The Nine States That Will Pick the President

*FLORIDA (27 EV--19 polls)
-Mean: Bush 46.5, Kerry 45.8
-Median: Bush 46, Kerry 46

Poll Note: In one of only three technical outliers of my analysis, Gallup's FL poll gets tossed; and the LA Times comes awfully, awfully close. Tossing Gallup:

-Mean: Bush 46.2, Kerry 46.0
-Median: Bush 46, Kerry 46

Analysis: of the 18 polls remaining, Bush makes it over 50 exactly once, and that poll, from SUSA, is the oldest of the bunch and has since been replaced by newer SUSA data. Bush's mode percentage share (most frequently occurring) is a paltry 46. Based on the numbers alone, if even 55% of the undecideds break against Bush, Kerry wins the state. Projections of the two-party share with undecideds projected:

55% for Kerry--Kerry 50.3, Bush 49.7
65% for Kerry--Kerry 51.1, Bush 48.9
75% for Kerry--Kerry 51.9, Bush 48.1

The anecdotal evidence of turnout is excellent; and the tiny piece of scientific evidence as to who has already voted (Kerry 56, Bush 39 amongst the 16% who have already voted, according to Quinnipac) is fantastic news, if it's true (which it may or may not be). Dems have vastly outpaced repubs in new voter registrations and ACT is really humming down in FL. Additionally, looking at various demographic groups, Bush will almost certainly lose some support amongst the Cuban population; and increased Repub voters from the exurban communities ought to be matched, if not outpaced, by increased Dem-leaning non-Cuban Hispanics. Bush has really hurt himself with seniors--not only is the prescription drugs plan a fiasco, but Jeb has banned re-importation of Canadian drugs, an unpopular move. Social Security and the flue vaccine shortage are huge issues here. Throw in the fact that the hurricanes largely hit GOP strongholds. I can't see where Bush does better here than in 2000--maybe slightly better amongst the Orthodox Jewish community, but the actual evidence of that is slim. Now, obviously, the potential for fraud is very real and scary. I say that Kerry wins by enough here that's it a pretty evident win--about 2% if I had to guess

Bush 227, Kerry 217

*IOWA (7 EV--9 polls)
-Mean: Bush 47.6, Kerry 46.0
-Median: Bush 47, Kerry 46

Analysis: Two of these polls, one from SUSA and one from Mason-Dixon, had Bush up 6; those are awfully close to being statistical outliers, but they barely make the cut. Of the other seven polls, Bush leads in four by no more than 2 points, and Kerry leads in three, all by 1 point. Bush makes it above 50 only once, and that's in the aforementioned SUSA poll; and he makes it to 49 in only two other cases. This, for me, may be the toughest state to predict. The biggest piece of evidence in my mind comes from Vilsack, who indicates that the Dems have a pretty massive early voting lead. That's what happened in 2000, as well--Repubs actually won on election day, but not enough to make the difference. I expect tremendously high turnout here, which could cut both ways, given that R's do slightly outnumer D's. But the state does have a history of going blue in presidential elections. If the current polling is to believed, Kerry would need to take 65% of the undecideds for a victory; that's certainly a reasonable number, though I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. But I don't fully believe those numbers--bear in mind that they're based on the two Bush +6 polls. All of the most recent data points show total dead heats. I say Kerry wins here behind the surge of Dem early voting, and the fact that his people really, really know the state (think Michael Whouley).

Bush 227, Kerry 224

*OHIO (20 EV--13 polls)
-Mean: Kerry 48.1, Bush 46.2
-Median: Kerry 49, Bush 46

Poll Note: the second outlier comes in the form of a Fox News Poll that had OH as 49-44 for Bush. Eliminating it produces these totals:

-Mean: Kerry 48.4, Bush 46.0
-Median: Kerry 49, Bush 46

Analysis: Basically, I've felt the whole cycle that the polls have been missing swaths of newly registered folks who really are going to vote. I still believe that, and yet Kerry already has a substantial lead here. Of all the polls, Bush never gets to 50, and the only time he hits 49 is in the outlying Fox Poll. Kerry, on the other hand, hits 50 three times, and 49 five times. I think there are certainly some fraud issues here, but not nearly to the same extent as in FL. It's just not the same when your brother's not the governor. I think that Blackwell is a hack, but I also think he doesn't want to see his career end as the man who stole Ohio; his opposition to the challengers in the polling places, along with the court order, ought to at least partially minimize the potential voter suppression. I think Buscho knows they've lost here and are desperately trying to find a way to get to 270 by other means. Kerry wins here, solidly.

Kerry 244, Bush 227

*MICHIGAN (17 EV--9 polls)
-Mean: Kerry 47.9, Bush 44.2
-Median: Kerry 48, Bush 44

Poll Note: The third and final technical outlier is the Mitchell Research poll that had Bush up 46-42. Tossing it out produces these numbers:

-Mean: Kerry 48.6, Bush 44.0
-Median: Kerry 48.5, Bush 43.5

Analysis: Obviously, Zogby has scared some folks here by having Bush ahead in his tracking, and Bush is clearly attempting to make a desperate play for the state--but it's just not going to happen. This state isn't shifting 5% from 2000, and Kerry has led here the entire cycle, really even during the best days of Bush's bounce. You've got polls out just today that have Kerry +6 and Kerry +4. In my view, the Bushies are taking a shot here only because it's 17 electoral votes--somehow swinging it would largely compensate for losing OH. Maybe also trying to divert Kerry's focus there. But I don't think the Bush camp, or anyone else, for that matter, thinks there's much chance that MI goes red. Kerry by about the same margin as 2000, if not more.

Kerry 261, Bush 227

*MINNESOTA (10 EV--6 polls)
-Mean: Kerry 47.2, Bush 44.3
-Median: Kerry 47.5, Bush 43

Analysis: MN is probably closer than alot of us would like it to be; but Bush's numbers don't suggest any ability at all to win the state. Of the six polls taken in Ohio, Bush's highest number is 47. Meanwhile, in half of the polls, Kerry leads by 5+. I think it'll be close here, but that it goes Kerry pretty much without a doubt.

Kerry 271, Bush 227

*NEW HAMPSHIRE (4 EV--11 polls)
-Mean: Kerry 48.2, Bush 44.5
-Median: Kerry 49, Bush 45

Analysis: NH is pretty clearly going Kerry. The Kerry folks know the state exceedingly well, the Repubs there are much more the reasonable type, and the incumbent R governor has been a complete disaster for his party. Nice pick-up for Kerry, and one that could put him over the top (not by itself of course).

Kerry 275, Bush 226

*NEW MEXICO (5 EV--5 Polls)
-Mean: Bush 47.2, Kerry 45.2
-Median: Bush 47, Kerry 46

Poll Note: taken by itself, today's Zogby would be an outlier--I've left it in since Zogby has shown Bush consistently ahead, and also just due to a small number of data points.

Analysis: I don't really know what's going on here. I am certain that Bush doesn't lead by 9. Of the five polls this month, Kerry leads in two of them, and one is a tie; while Zogby and Mason-Dixon have Bush up significantly. My general reaction to Zogby is that he does his best work in western states, and his numbers are all over the place (it was only Bush +3 two days ago); the state's got a popular Dem governor, and all evidence suggests that Bush will not increase his share of the national Hispanic vote. If one were to accept the polling average as is, Kerry would need to take 70% of the undecideds for a victory here--again, perfectly, reasonable, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. Overall, though everything in my gut tells me that NM is staying blue, and Bush wouldn't be spending Monday night there if he thought it was safe. The polls are almost certainly under-estimating Spanish-speaking voters. Kerry squeaks by in what may tbe closest state in terms of number of votes, as it was in 2000.

Kerry 280, Bush 227

*PENNSYLVANIA (21 EV--16 Polls)
-Mean: Kerry 48.4, Bush 44.7
-Median: Kerry 48.5, Bush 45.0

Analysis: Bush's numbers are horrible here--of all 16 polls this month, he's never been higher than 47 amongst RV's, and the Repubs have largely pulled resources from the state. Rendell has a great machine in the urban areas. Staying blue, easily.

Kerry 301, Bush 227

*WISCONSIN (10 EV--8 polls)
-Mean: Kerry 47.3, Bush 46.6
-Median: Kerry 47.5, Bush 46.0

Analysis: I long thought of WI as Bush's best shot to pick up a Gore state, but I think that's Iowa now. WI has been slowly but surely trending blue the whole month, and the Springstein rally was just the perfect way to culminate it--turnout will be massive here, lots of young voters; and the third parties will have a role. I think that Bush's best shot here was if his guys could win the ground game, and based on everything I've seen and read, I don't think they can. Kerry wins a tight race here--and it's critically important that he do so.

Total Projection: Kerry 311, Bush 227

******************

Basically, I see a very slight Kerry victory in the popular vote (between 1-2 points) coupled with a solid EC victory. I think that the numbers are favorable for Kerry in the nine critical states, and that the Repubs will simply not have an answer for the newly registered Dem voters and the ACT/Moveon/Kerry ground game. The importance of WI and NH, incidentally, cannot be overstated. I'm fairly certain that OH is going Kerry--and I think that all the facts (the fraud aside) suggest a Kerry win in FL. But I wouldn't want to bet everything on FL, nor on IA or NM. If all those go to Bush, while Kerry takes OH, then it's all about WI and NH--winning them both would earn him a 272-266 victory.

All in all, I feel very good about where things are, and Bin Laden tonight didn't change that. I'll probably offer one more (shortler) final predicition on Monday. Work your asses off the next few days, y'all, we're gonna win this thing.


Display: ThreadedMinimalNestedFlatFlat UnthreadedDynamic ThreadedDynamic Minimal





Second-to-Last Electoral College Analysis (don't read if you're sick of polls) | 106 comments (106 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Matt (4.00 / 8)

You rock. Don't ever leave, even when Kerry wins.
You are an invaluable asset to this site, and I will sleep better tonight thanks to your analysis.

Jonathan

Visit the Diary of the Lying Socialist Weasels, for commentary from the Original Progressive Web Warriors!

by Jonathan on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:32:23 GMT



Thanks alot (3.98 / 61)

This site has been awesome for me in terms of figuring out what I really believe in. I think Kerry's winning and it's gonna feel amazing--but the fight is still worth fighting if somehow it doesn't happen. I'm not going anywhere either way--I can't wait for this one to be done, but I'm looking forward to the midterms already.


by mattb25 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:35:50 GMT
< Parent >


I look forward to that (none / 0)

Oh, and this diary's recommended. We need good news to start the day tomorrow...

Visit the Diary of the Lying Socialist Weasels, for commentary from the Original Progressive Web Warriors!
by Jonathan on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:46:56 GMT
< Parent >


Thank you.....really encouraging and (none / 0)

well researched!!



by enthusiast on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 08:09:51 GMT
< Parent >


Matt (none / 1)

I find your EV analysis very interesting and helpful- I'll bet you are really close. I am more tied into the feeling of the popular vote. And do you know what? I think that you are dead wrong about it being within a few points.
I think that the true popular vote is more like 70-30 Kerry. Remember, no one is asking huge portions of our people what they think. The only people really getting polled are people who are sitting around in their houses answering land lines. Really! What portion of the population is that, half?

And those are the people most likely to vote for someone like George Bush. Buncha Fox-watchers and older people, people who sit on couches for HOURS with nothing better to do than answer a spam call! Ha! I can't imagine it- but I know they exist, and that is what the polls are, they represent what Those People think, with a few random other people that they happened to catch between here and there.

The people with no land line, the people who wouldn't answer it anyway, the young people, the people with lives, the people working two jobs, the private people, the active people, they just aren't getting asked. And they are Kerry voters.

The post-debate polls were very telling. A lot of people stopped their busy lives and tuned in to the debates, and then took the time to vote in the polls. Both sides freeped aggressively, so I'm sure that kind of thing cancelled out. Those polls seemed to run about 70/30 Kerry/Bush.

I just think that anyone paying attention to the questions asked of a buncha people sitting in their houses answering phones are in for a big shock. Those people may not be the most, uh, electorally impressive segment of our new voting population. I predict a popular vote landslide for Kerry, and a nice surprise for us all on Wednesday.

The People Have the Power. And Thomas Jefferson predicted this exact scene way back when. He knew that the people, given a bad enough government, would rise up and toss them out before all was lost. GOTV!

http://www.katemckinnon.com

by kate mckinnon on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:22:25 GMT
< Parent >


sorry (none / 0)

70-30 is out of the realm of possibility.
a blowout would be 57-43. i projecy something closer to 53-47, and that optimistic. the problem with your analysus of the type of person that takes polls is that it ignores two things. the first is the huge number of kerry voters that do sit at home or are willing to take five minutes for a poll if they happen to be home when they get a call. dems arent just young, they are middle aged and they are seniors too. the second problem is that you assume that the pollsters are sloppy about adjusting. im not saying that they are perfect, or that their adjustments are always enough, but they do weight for party, race, age, etc.


by mdon860 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 16:03:23 GMT
< Parent >


As a 30 szomething (none / 0)

I resent that. I do answer polls-I do have a life and I dont sit on the couch watching Fox all day!!


by treehugger on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 16:17:00 GMT
< Parent >


Totally off topic (4.00 / 5)

But my gf has been after me to start one of those free yahoo photo shops, so if any of y'all want to put a face with the funny-looking poll junkie, see here: http://photos.yahoo.com/bergo1981


by mattb25 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 09:26:21 GMT
< Parent >


Hey, is no stereotype sacred to you? (none / 1)

Brilliant statistophiles are supposed to look nerdy, don't you know? After these pictures, I'll never envision a numbers-cruncher quite the same way ever again.
PS: "Mattamanda" are a great-looking couple. And that assessment is way out of the MOE.



by matt n nyc on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 11:17:13 GMT
< Parent >


Matt (none / 1)

Great pictures. You have said you look like a "meathead," and I completely disagree. You look, as you seem on this board, like a wonderful, smart, caring, good human being who has an astonishing life of terrific things in front of him. I have met a number of Kossacks over the last six months, people whose lives never would have touched mine or mine theirs were it not for this wonderful medium. I am honored to share the left side of the blogosphere with y'all. See you on Wednesday for all the analysis of where we got it wrong and where we got it right.

John Kerry: Strong, decent, unruffled, consistent, presidential. John Kerry: The Real Deal
by DCDemocrat on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 11:33:00 GMT
< Parent >


Great Analysis and (none / 0)

pics. Thanks for both!

There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. - Mahatma Gandhi
by otis704 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:58:41 GMT
< Parent >


link not working? (none / 0)

n/t

my weblog and my website - they're, uh, in progress, OK?
by snookybeh on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:29:35 GMT
< Parent >


Who would've guessed the wonk is humpy (none / 0)

It was smart to have built up your reputation for fine poll analysis without a face. Your muscle punk persona might have colored how superficial slobs like me valued your work.
Of course now readership of your entries by the gay body fascist crowd here at DKos will go up substantially. Especially because your unavailable to our side.

My prediction: Kerry 52% Bush 46% Others 2%

by John Campanelli on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 20:19:25 GMT
< Parent >


Midterms? Me too. (none / 0)

We can't put too much mind or muscle into it yet, but whatever happens Tuesday, I too have a next focus: getting more good people into Congress in 06.


by Rabid in Oregon on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:31:49 GMT
< Parent >


One other thing (none / 0)

It seemed like you kinda took good turnout into account, but what happens if we see record-busting turnout? How feasible is a larger win for Kerry?

Visit the Diary of the Lying Socialist Weasels, for commentary from the Original Progressive Web Warriors!
by Jonathan on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:34:12 GMT



I think that (4.00 / 6)

massive turnout is more likely than not to pad Kerry's popular vote total than to add states--but truly high turnout (like high 70s in a given state) could swing VA, MO, NV, WV, AR, CO and maybe even AZ and NC.
I think massive turnout on our side is certainly a good possibility, but it's more about the margin--I do think the Repub turnout will be up also. I basically think that my above analysis holds if Dems can even hold the 2000 ratios--39-36-25, b/c Kerry will win more independents than Gore did.

One thing that I think is wholly possible, by the way, is to see the numbers jump tremendously amongst self-identified indies. I do think that many young people and new voters may not be as quick to identify with either party se, but I expect the bulk of them to be Kerry voters.



by mattb25 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:40:10 GMT
< Parent >


You don't need (none / 0)

a turnout in the 70s to swing Va- I don't know about the other states, but for Virginia- given the differentials of 2000 this seems too high-or are you strictly basing it on polling data from this year?


by bruh1 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:09:43 GMT
< Parent >


Thanks (none / 1)

you have the clearest, most reasonable and yet nicely optimistic analysis of any of us addicts.

"I'm the Vice-President. They know it, and they know that I know it." --Dan Quayle
by BaltimoreDem on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:42:22 GMT



Nice! (4.00 / 3)

One thing though: Most Hispanics living in this country are English-speaking.
Those that can only speak Spanish or speak very little English tend not to be voters or citizens for that matter.

Hispanics CITIZENS know English and are rather well informed 2nd or 3rd generation members of the population.

Unless you are latino yourself, you may want to hold off making generalizations about this group because it is not homogenous. It's not even a race and depending on the nationality/ancestry and region/state where they are voting the issues that matter most may differ.

For example, my background is Puerto Rican and as you know we are all U.S. citizens by birth. So to us, immigration is really not as big an issue as it might be to those coming from Mexico/Central America. And also most of us living on the mainland speak fluent English or are at least very bilingual. Lastly, we are for the most part Kerry voters on the whole.

Then you have the Cubans who once again are showing why trying to decipher some so-called monolithic Hispanic vote is impossible. A shift is taking place among Cubans, not only living in Florida but elsewhere. Polls are showing that more are breaking with tradition and going Democrat this time around.

Currently I am living in California so here of course there is a large Mexican-American population. Notice the emphasis. Again... don't buy into Lou Dobbs' image of typical Mexican-Americans. Many are well integrated into American society and are in positions of power and respect such as cops, teachers, government employees etc in this state.
Many are 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th generation now.

You seem like a smart man Matt so you probably knew this already. But I leave this comments here for others who may not.

I get tired of pollsters/pundits talk about Hispanic vote as if they know what they're talking about. Some do, but from my experience most don't seem to and it comes through in their reporting.

In closing, I appreciate your diary very much. You really went in-depth with your analysis and it was impressive.

I sure hope you are correct and that Kerry goes on to a big victory.

John Kerry: strong leadership that can calm the waters of a troubled world.

by diplomatic on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:49:55 GMT



I hear you (none / 0)

and that about qualifying that point, it wasn't meant to be a broad generalization, and I definitely wasn't even trying to make the point that Hispanics who are registered to vote aren't perfectly proficient in English--I meant it more along the lines that may be more likely to possibly get a parent, or a child, or a relative, on the phone, who, for whatever reasons, didn't respond to an English-speaking pollster--I think that would be particularly true of the robo-calls. I'm not Hispanic myself, and certainly meant no offense--I think the same would apply to any rapidly increasing group of voters or potential voters amongst which English may not be the primary language. The situation I often observe here outside of NYC is what I described above--basically all of the folks who are going to vote that I've encountered speak excellent English, and most of them are entirely English speaking (at least at the office), but many have a non-English speaker in the household.
Sorry for any confusion.



by mattb25 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:59:03 GMT
< Parent >


now that I know you are near NYC (none / 0)

I have no doubt you understand what I was talking about. Thanks for responding. After all the panic here at Kos earlier today based on the OBL tape (doesn't help Bush...) it was good to end the night on a good note, by reading this diary and remembering that Kerry is still doing very well.

John Kerry: strong leadership that can calm the waters of a troubled world.
by diplomatic on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 07:09:30 GMT
< Parent >


Well.... (none / 0)

I do appreciate Diplomatic's comments on the diversity of the Latino community. We are diverse in many ways, being language and geography two important ones. And that is why we cannot even generalize on thinking that the proto-type of Latino US citizen always speaks English well. As a matter of fact, that is not true. Even though English-Speaking is more common among US Cit. Latinos in the Northeastern coast, that is not the case in the Mid and upper Mid West--and again, it depends on location (rural, urban, semi-urban, etc), origins (Chicano, Central American, South American, Caribbean, etc), and working class (field workers, service workers, factory workers, professional workers, etc.).
So, we can safely say that indeed, language can be a significant barrier in appraising the Latino/a political leanings through a telephone survey. In other words, the current polls do not read the Latino voter well. Of course, the ultimate voting result will be actually moving our bodies to the polls and voting. And all this depends on the interest the local party may have in reaching out to those Latino voters living with the majority of those who cannot vote. But on the meantime, polls are not a reliable indicator of the Latino/a factor.


Let's call them by their correct name: fascists!

by hidalgo on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 08:51:38 GMT
< Parent >


Great analysis (none / 0)

The only thing I'd add is that Kerry has rallies scheduled in Appleton, WI (GOP terrirtory) and downtown Milwaukee in the next few days.


by badger on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:50:22 GMT



Hey Matt... (none / 0)

...go here Crazy Freeper gives HIS EV count and have a chuckle on me.
My favorite part is the various "sounds reasonable to me" or "what a mandate that would be" posts that exist below.

Want to beat Bush... it's the LIES, stupid.

by JeffLieber on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:52:26 GMT



Love how the guy has the colors (none / 0)

backwards. Surely something to do with liberals=communists=reds. lol
One of the posters had somethin interesting though. Did ACT pull out of MI???



by xsal on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 07:21:21 GMT
< Parent >


Yes, they did (none / 1)

ACT was so confident that Michigan was in the bag that they moved their forces to other states like Wisconsin and Iowa and Ohio.


by existenz on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 08:19:30 GMT
< Parent >


That's how we do it over here (none / 0)

I even saw a discussion once where someone said American news orgs used to do it red=left, blue=right, but it got switched round somehow.
In Britain the Tories describe themselves as "true blue conservative" and Labour party members wear a red rose and sing "The Red Flag" at the annual conference:

Then raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath its folds we'll live and die
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here!



by Del C on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 12:45:47 GMT
< Parent >


red/blue (none / 0)

I've always assumed that the red/blue switch occured because it was thought impolitic to label Dem's as "red."
But I find myself figuring I live in a town that's so blue it's almost pink...



by rdt on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:00:49 GMT
< Parent >


Up until VERY recently... (none / 0)

that was how the states were colored. Back in '80, I think it was Time Magazine had a story on 'Lake Reagan,' the Blue landmass that coated the electoral map.

Who says young people are apathetic?
by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 20:24:51 GMT
< Parent >


Ha, and that guy's signature also happens to be (none / 0)

"Cheney is my role model and the greatest Republican since RR."
Of course, I'm in the reality based community, so what do I know?

Got Democracy?

by shelle on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 07:55:19 GMT
< Parent >


More: (none / 0)

in response to a fellow freeper who questioned the guy's optimism and asked what the numbers were based on, the genius replied:
"My own eyes and gut. Not real scientific..."

Another freeper posted how California would go repug once we saw how the other states would "go down". Over my dead Democrat body!

And finally:
"Bin Laden spouted the Kerry/DNC/Michael Moore talking points

Why would a Muslim refer to God instead of Allah in his talking points?

What's missing? I'm John Kerry and I approve of this message."

Non-reality based, indeed. Now, time to disinfect my eyeballs.

Got Democracy?

by shelle on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 08:01:23 GMT
< Parent >


Don't tell them (none / 0)

the French worship Dieu, or there'll be hell to pay!


by Del C on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 12:49:38 GMT
< Parent >


That sig says it all (none / 0)

Pathological liar is the greatest republican since clueless leader.

Try a better browser www.mozilla.org
by doug r on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 16:05:55 GMT
< Parent >


God (none / 0)

What numbers is he looking at? He must be looking at only Strategic Vision polls. He has every swing state except MI going for Bush. No way!

Proud member of the reality-based community.
by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 12:17:26 GMT
< Parent >


Hilarious (none / 0)

This has to be my favorite comment:

when the libs in Cali see Pa and NJ AND MI fall, they will go surfing and so go ahead and add 72 to that total.



Fear More Years!
by Melquiades on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 12:56:12 GMT
< Parent >


The stupid freeper doesn't know (none / 0)

that California has 100 EV.... Just kidding!
55 EV to the Golden State!

Nosotros Kerrymos a John, porque George nos aBusha
by sersan on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:07:18 GMT
< Parent >


It shocks me (none / 0)

that they act like THEY are the ones that have to worry about the Democrats "stealing" the election. Do they really not remember 4 years ago?
Does it disturb anyone else to read their words and realize JUST how delusional they really are? I mean, they don't seem at all to have a mentally sound grasp of anything.

Our neighbor's 6 year old kid told my husband last night that Kerry would raise our taxes and bomb us if he was elected. Wonder where he gets that from? A woman walking down the road while I was out getting the mail stopped by me to catch her breath, we talked about the candidates, I mentioned something about how we NEEDED to take back our country, and she said that the reason our country is in the shape it is in is because Clinton was too into sex and partying, that he is the sole reason we are in such bad shape right now. I blinked and said...Oh my! Do you really believe that??? (By the way, just so you don't panic, this is Georgia, you wouldn't really expect to hear anything different from the locals.)

I heard once that the majority of Kerry supporters, aside from being fully aware of Kerry's plans, also know what Bush's stand is on the issues. On the other hand, the majority of Bush supporters don't really know Bush's stand on the issues, nor do they know Kerry's stand on the issues. It shows on the freeper sites, doesn't it?




by pixella on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:06:58 GMT
< Parent >


You want MORE of a shocker... (none / 0)

...this one is entitled... I KID YOU NOT... WHY ARE WE SO NICE?!?

Want to beat Bush... it's the LIES, stupid.
by JeffLieber on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:19:43 GMT
< Parent >


I know I'm being petty but you know (none / 0)

one of characteristics of the posts over there is that they consistently seem to have an inability to spell correctly. I'm not talking about typos which we all make in haste. I'm talking about not being able to spell. This leads me to believe that there is some part of their brain that is malfunctioning. Perhaps this explains their inability to do in depth analysis of anything.

There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. - Mahatma Gandhi
by otis704 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:08:44 GMT
< Parent >


"Black people" (none / 0)

They seem to have a lot of rancor toward black people at this site. Maybe this is what makes them feel justified in singling them out to deny them the right to vote. My dream: every AA person in the country who want to vote, does, especially in Florida. I don't even care who they vote for. Well, not entirely true . . .

Vote. Vote as if someone's life depends on it. It does.
by Time Waits for no Woman on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:32:14 GMT
< Parent >


Why are Repubs too nice??? (none / 0)

Does Free Republic dispense hallucinogenic drugs upon logon??? The blatant racism is that post is amazing...


by MetaGator on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:07:23 GMT
< Parent >


Maybe because they all use IE (none / 0)

With all the pop-ups and pop-unders and java and flash all over the screen, they just can't put two thoughts together.
Our browser breakdown

Try a better browser www.mozilla.org

by doug r on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 16:19:48 GMT
< Parent >


Non-Reality Based Voters (none / 0)

A recent study showed that a majority of Bush supporters believe that WMD has been ALREADY BEEN FOUND in Iraq, that Saddam actively collaborated with Osama on 9/11, and that the Iraqis are still showering us with flowers and candies. Actual belief. Clearly not based on a judicious analysis of the discernible evidence, but actual belief. Which is why they think the swing states will all go red.

"Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush
by litigatormom on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:35:27 GMT
< Parent >


huh?!?! (none / 0)

What are those guys smoking?? Do you think an EV win of 311 for Kerry will be a "mandate"? I'm not holding my breath....

George "W is for weak" Bush - He's not my pet goat!
by Wee Mama on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:37:33 GMT
< Parent >


Freeper EV Poll (none / 0)

Wow, its like going to the Bizarro World.

"Our enemy is innovative and resourceful and so are we. Our enemy never stops thinking of new ways to harm us and our country, and neither do we." G.W. Bush
by litigatormom on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:30:32 GMT
< Parent >


Freeper Predictions (none / 0)

Good God, those people scare me. How could anyone drink that much Bush Kool-aid??? Isn't the fact that he is a complete idiot enough to kick his ass out?? The fact that he has surrounded himself with power hungry, war-mongering demagogue's doesn't help either. I honestly cannot understand how anyone support's Bush. In some ways, I am more frightened of four more years of Bush than Bin Laden.


by MetaGator on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:02:52 GMT
< Parent >


Wisconsin (4.00 / 2)

You're right that 3d Parties are a key factor here. badnarik's got TV up in the Northern and Western markets, and lots of radio spots painting Bush as a bigspending liberal, and unreliable on firearms rights.
Latest trend in Madison is Cobb folks swapping to Kerry in return for votes for the Green Candidate for District Attorney, Sally Styx, who's in a 2 way race versus a mediocre Dem. incumbent. This may also be happening in the Northwest, where Green mike Miles is taking on Dave Obey for a House seat with no Republican.

Meanwhile Tommy Thompson's effort for Bush has been lacadaisical, he's putting in more time for GOP candidates for the Legislature.

Kerry by 45,000 votes.

Your Blunder War is showing.

by ben masel on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 06:54:59 GMT



Strategy & Tactics (none / 0)


Meanwhile Tommy Thompson's effort for Bush has been lacadaisical, he's putting in more time for GOP candidates for the Legislature.
That's probably a pretty smart allocation of resources for the GOP, actually; I honestly don't think that the Republicans have any real chance of taking the states of the old NFC Central Division (well, except possibly Florida, but that's not really what I was aiming for).




by Ray Radlein on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 09:13:46 GMT
< Parent >


Texas (4.00 / 2)

I think in local races in Texas, we may see some surprising wins for Libertarian candidates where they are running only against a Republican.
Voters seem very angry about the Republican redistricting fiasco and are voting ANTI republican in those races.

Turnout in Travis County for early voting has been very high, 30% I think as of Thursday and it ended yesterday evening. (Travis County votes heavily democratic).

Whatever the presidential outcome, I think in local races you will see the "Dean" impact of taking back democracy in local races. I think the huge voter registration drive will help take back a lot of local offices and state offices, even in non-swing states.

Is anyone looking at those statistics, post election? I would be very interested to see some reporting on that.

thanks for your analysis. Very informative and reality based.



by Carolyn on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:13:38 GMT
< Parent >


Early voting totals in central TX (none / 1)

On last night's news, KXAN (NBC-36, Austin) claimed that 33% of registered voters in both Travis (includes Austin, for the political junkies out there who don't know every county in TX) and Williamson Counties voted early.
I'm happy to say I'm in the second class, and had no trouble getting in shortly before the polls closed Monday night.

Many of the judicial races on my ballot had only a Republican or a Republican and Libertarian -- it will be interesting to see how those turn out Tuesday night.

I've been seeing plenty of ads for the state representative districts (three in particular) heating up for the past two weeks -- more and more negative, and definitely tied to redistricting (and thus to Tom Delay).

Here's hoping we look back on Matt's predictions and wonder "why was he such a pessimist?"



by jjc4jre on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:19:10 GMT
< Parent >


Final Travis County early voting numbers (none / 1)

Burnt Orange Report has them here. 37%. He's predicting 70-75% in Travis County. Sure hope everyone in CD 10 knows about Sadun.
If we get numbers like that nationally, it would be jaw-dropping. If I'm remembering all the historic numbers right. Never can remember if people talk about 'percentage of registered voters' in the final numbers, or 'percentage of eligible voters.'



by reklemrov on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 16:41:54 GMT
< Parent >


about the Libs in Tx (none / 0)

Just for the record, I voted for the Libs on the ballot in opposition to the Reps that were on the ticket.
I understand that the Libs will probably not win but the point I was making is that there are votes against the reps... Just as my vote for Kerry won't turn Texas blue, but helps show my opposition to Bush.

One thing I noticed, sadly, on my ballot was that for judges in my area there were no Dems running against the Reps. Very disappointing in this insanely conservative area.




by SMR on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:24:06 GMT
< Parent >


Your vote won't turn Texas blue, (none / 0)

but it will show up in the popular vote, which is just as important, as far as justifying the EV vote for Kerry. Afterall, we all know how we felt last time with Gore REALLY winning the election, especially the popular vote. It's important for Kerry to win both.
As kos said in the diary on the front page:


There are two battles being fought Tuesday. The battle for the electoral vote -- which will decide the next president, and the battle for the popular vote -- which will confer legitimacy on the victor.

And a lot of the popular vote will come from all of us in the red states that really wish our state would go blue!


by pixella on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:56:33 GMT
< Parent >


Lukewarm Tommy (none / 1)

Tommy's a loyal Republican, but Bush hasn't backed him in pursuing his priorities at HHS and the political shop caused him some major embarrassment on the prescription drug benefit deception. And remember, Tommy really wanted the Transportation post instead of HHS.
So, I'm not surprised at all that Tommy isn't going all out for Bush.

Hard pounding, gentlemen. Let's see who pounds the longest. --Wellington at Waterloo.

by Maturin on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:30:35 GMT
< Parent >


Transportation (none / 0)

Kerry could do worse than offering Tommy Secretary of Transportation. He's a big passenger rail fan, and would help lining up the Republican support for a major rail buildout.

Your Blunder War is showing.
by ben masel on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 19:57:41 GMT
< Parent >


Nice analysis (none / 0)

although I disagree with you on New Mexico - I think its going Bush, although it is worth noting race2004.net still predicts a Kerry win.
I think people really should not expect undecideds (who I think, frankly are a miniscule % of the population at this point, many of whom prob. won't even bother voting) to break decisively for Kerry. I think this is the damage the OBL tape will do. However, Kerry will probably still get a decent share, in the neighborhood of 50%. The key is turnout, and a massive turnout upwards of 60% of the voting pop. makes a lot of this polling moot. I think thats a big problem with the analysis at mydd, which assumes very rosy undecideds breaking for Kerry and completely downplays the importance of turnout - after all, it was GOTV that won Gore the last election.

Popular Vote wise, I think Kerry wins nationally by 2 to 3%. He wins in the electoral college anywhere from 280 to 310 votes.

OBL? Like I said, a factor, but not as big as some of the cable talking heads believe. Could help Bush (and indeed, it prob. will a bit), but I don't think in any decisive way. Could cost Kerry a state or two, though.

Ben P

The United States has a conservative political culture defending a liberal heritage. The modern Republican Party's problem is that it is neither.

by Ben P on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 07:53:31 GMT



I think it depends on the definition of undecided (3.75 / 4)

Where I see UBL as possibly helping Bush--and I think the tape in general has more potential to hurt GWB than help him--is with the shaky Bush folks, who were leaning but still persuadable. this seems like the type of thing that would move them into the Bush camp.
But for pure undecideds, I don't see this helping Bush at all. Those folks already strongly dislike Bush, it's Kerry they havwn't yet committed to. And my sense is that--especially if it is an informed group, like Zogby suggests--that UBL will damage Bush here.

I do agree, though, that folks shouldn't be counting on 75-80% undecideds going Kerry. But I think 50 is low; I'd say 60% is pretty reasonable.

But I agree on the turnout, and I don't think repubs know what is/will hit them.

I'm also pretty firmly of the belief that Kerry is generally systemtically undersampled in the polls by potentially meaningful margins. Kerry tied, for me, is in reality Kerry ahead before even playing with the undecideds.



by mattb25 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 07:59:27 GMT
< Parent >


Undecideds, Underrepresented, & UBL (none / 0)

Matt-
Entirely agree that the polls right now are underrepresenting Kerry by a statistically meaningful margin.
As for UBL/OBL, I'd say, all things being equal, a focus on this at this time isn't what I'd have chosen. That said, there are very few undecided voters left so the overall impact I think is likely to be small.

I think its also a very powerful point that undecided voters, were they disposed to vote for GWB, would almost certainly have made that call by now.

A very heavy turnout, and that appears to be very likely--and, in fact, already occurring in many locations is evidence of motivation and I think that will favor Kerry by your 60% margin or just over that.

Thanks for some terrific analysis.



by ChicagoCillen on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 08:16:14 GMT
< Parent >


There are more undecided than I thought (4.00 / 4)

Like most of you, I thought there were not many undecideds until I started canvassing.
Man! Did I find many. Many ex-bushies were on the fence and my visit helped push them down to our side. Many Latinos were not even paying attention to the news and thus were not thinking about voting. Of course, my visit helped solved that problem in most. And this was a territory that the party officials gave it as already covered and re-covered, thus, with little undecideds.

So, the lesson here is, personal contact, getting our eyes to make contact with other eyes, and hands shaking hands, is what can give us a real glimpse of the world, and can also garner us votes.

Let's call them by their correct name: fascists!

by hidalgo on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 08:58:14 GMT
< Parent >


not paying attention (4.00 / 2)

I think a lot of voters, despite what we online junkies think, aren't paying a lot of attention, not with the intensity that some of us are.
I think that's where the undecideds lie--the people who dont' usually vote, or dont' really think who they vote for makes that much difference, or are just busy with regular life and haven't tuned in that much.

So while we sit here and panic about this event or that(i say that to us as well as to the freepers), they are out shopping, taking care of their kids, etc etc...

(I know this from talking to people in my own family).

It registers to them, but not as intensely as it does to us, and each little news item doesn't register that much on their radar either.

So I'm glad to hear your canvassing report!



by Carolyn on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:18:57 GMT
< Parent >


I agree that Matt has done some great work (none / 0)

I think its also a very powerful point that undecided voters, were they disposed to vote for GWB, would almost certainly have made that call by now.
I like to tell them that if they haven't made up their minds after 4 years they're not undecided, they're unconvinced. I think there is a significant difference between those two states of mind.....

A proud member of the reality-based community!

by roxtar on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 10:15:21 GMT
< Parent >


How does Kerry win popular vote with only 50% (none / 0)

of the undecideds in your analysis?
If Kerry only got 50% he would likely lose the election.

Your analysis predicts a Bush land slide.



by montana fly on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 12:20:14 GMT
< Parent >


Matt... (none / 0)

I pretty much agree with everything you said in your diary. I think New Mexico is Bush's most likely pick-up, followed by Wisconsin. And that's all.
Florida is still uncertain. I love the early turnout numbers we are seeing. It bespeaks overall higher enthusiasm among Democrats. It might seem unwise to agree that the polls seem to be wrong, but I do think that we are going to have a blowout in Florida. The Repubs just pissed too many people off in 2000.



by Dumbo on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 09:16:55 GMT



FL, IA, NM (none / 0)

I'm right there with you except on these three. I think voter fraud will put FL in Bush's column, like it did in 2000, and that he takes IA and NM. But it doesn't matter since we still have NH, OH, and WI. I've called it 272-266 for Kerry for over a week now, and I haven't seen anything to change my mind.
The overall good news is that there's a lot more ways for Kerry to win here than Bush. We don't need to take all of the close states -- we just need OH and one or two others. There's still a chance that we could run the table and win all nine of the close contests, and I'll be extremely pleased to see that happen. But it doesn't have to happen, so I'm sleeping ok at night again. :-)


--
Like sharpened knives through chicken McNuggets.

by rusty on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 10:18:55 GMT



I agree about FL. (none / 0)

We will witness unprecidented fraud, and even greater idiocy. Is it possible to revoke statehood? If so, I think Florida should be left to become its own little banana republic.
To any Dem Floridians: I don't know how you can stand it.



by iconoclastic cat on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 10:35:15 GMT
< Parent >


While I agree, I like to fantasize... (none / 0)

that Kerry wins FL - wouldn't it be great IN SPITE of the fraud & theft. Couldn't you see everyone in Bush Camp asking WTF? Poor Jeb...


by Stein on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:39:42 GMT
< Parent >


reasons (none / 1)

that's a great analysis. thanks.
on mclaughlin group tonight, even tony blankley, who so often is just a hack who spins shamelessly to promulgate an optimistic (to him) scenario, said that with a 1-2 point shift toward kerry nationally he would take most of the swing states.

i have noticed, subjectively, and maybe it is just my own bias from being relatively informed by reading here and ruy etc, that among the partisan pundits on tv (and m. group tonight was an exmple of this), everyone of course predicts victory for their candidate, but the ones for bush tend to justify it as their feeling or gut without really having a reason, or giving some kind of flimsy reason like a single poll in a certain demographic or bush's terrorism numbers, while at least some of those for kerry who know what they're talking about are able to list several solid reasons for their prediction.

high turnout, new voters, better ground game, bush under 50, undecideds break for challenger, battleground poll advantage, advantage among independents, early voting indications, polling inaccuracy - all these factors are mostly unknowable but likely favor kerry, and a 1-2 point swing nationally and a sweep of the swing states certainly seems a reasonable and in fact likely possibility to me.

From another country under U.S. military occupation ... FREE HAWAII!

by scottmaui on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 10:26:30 GMT



Of course, Matt (none / 1)

I like your reasoning, and I still hope to turn West Virginia blue. I am going out there this morning to set up camp for the next four days. I will be back when Kerry is president elect.

John Kerry: Strong, decent, unruffled, consistent, presidential. John Kerry: The Real Deal
by DCDemocrat on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 10:57:27 GMT



Good analysis, but... (none / 1)


...you missed one small factor: The Wolves.
What say you about......The Wolves?



by Bill in Portland Maine on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 11:14:10 GMT



What can he say about wolves? (none / 0)

Dunno. Are they Polish?


by RunawayRose on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 11:30:33 GMT
< Parent >


The Polish Wolves (none / 0)

sounds like a rock group to me :)
On the other hand let's not forget Poland and the two important Poles, the North and the South.

Nosotros Kerrymos a John, porque George nos aBusha
by sersan on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:24:31 GMT
< Parent >


Final thoughts on the election (4.00 / 2)

I am on my way out to West Virginia for my final four days of campaigning, and boy, am I glad that this is almost over. If anyone wants to help turn the Mountain State blue, hop in a car and come out to 224 King Street, Martinsburg.
We all know that OBL's campaign appearance on behalf of George Bush has give us some pause, but I woke up feeling that it will be a net loss for George Bush. Like Nixon, OBL is tanned, fit, and ready to go. America just is not going to embrace that.

I hope this paragraph from the Washington Post yesterday excites you as much as it excites me:

In the effort to get loyal voters to cast ballots on Election Day, a Republican polling firm has found that the campaign of John F. Kerry and its Democratic allies have personally contacted many more voters in key swing states than the Bush campaign and its allies... Although not conclusive, the poll suggests that Kerry and Democratic groups have been far more active contacting supporters than their GOP counterparts.

The fact of the matter is that we know who more of our voters are than they know of theirs, and there is nothing the Republicans can do to fix that basic fact. So if we get out our vote on Tuesday, the game is ours. Moreover, every single analysis of early voting I have seen suggests if all voting for president were to end now, John Kerry would win, so we already have a vast number of votes in the bank that unchangeable and immutable. Let's go get the rest of them, folks!

I have believed for four years we would win in 2004. I have believed when George Bush was at the bottom of his game. I have believe when George was at the top his game. John Kerry will be president of the United States. Bet the car and house on it.

John Kerry: Strong, decent, unruffled, consistent, presidential. John Kerry: The Real Deal

by DCDemocrat on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 11:27:49 GMT



very good (none / 0)

I've been getting similar results, Kerry can get 272 to 310 electoral votes based on what we see in the state polls. Bush is trying to get more democrats to jump to his side to bail him out so he knows he is toast.


by drsmith131 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 11:38:54 GMT



That's Been My Prediction Exactly (none / 1)

311-227.
FL, OH & NH flipping from 2000.
So I think this is brilliant.
Thanks for doing all that work. I'll be referencing it as if I did all of it myself.
I think the provisional ballots will outnumber the election night victory margin in many areas. I don't think Bush is going to concede until many days after the election and only after doing whatever they can to cast doubt on Kerry's legitimacy.



by HL Mungo on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 12:08:31 GMT



You mean (none / 0)

You Democrats from the Democrat party?
Anyway, I wanted to say thank you for this incredible post. That's a lot of work, all of it heartening.



by SheRa on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 12:19:47 GMT



Usually I Avoid Polls (none / 0)

But your work and clear exposition at this late hour was very invigorating - great work and it's giving us all a shot of energy as we move into the weekend.


by Athena on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:03:15 GMT



asdf (none / 0)

An excellent analysis Matt. Here is my prediction (without all the breakdown and analysis as to how I got these numbers). Just my final predition.
John Kerry will win the popular vote and the Electoral College.

My EC predictions:

With Preznut taking Florida:

Kerry 310 Bush 228

With John Kerry taking Florida (which I think will happen):

Kerry 337 Bush 201



by canuk1 on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:10:36 GMT



Solid work as always, Matt n/t (none / 0)




by bcb on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:23:54 GMT



Your analysis is excellent (none / 0)

Thanks so much for all your hard work and for a very thoughtful process!
THe only one I am questioning is Iowa. Am comforted by the fact that we lead in early voting but that state is making me way nervous! anyway-with your EC prediction it won't sink our ship!
Thanks again!


by NannyR on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:25:40 GMT



asdg (none / 0)

I lived in Iowa since I was five... and even I don't know what to make of it in this election. Certainly the flu vaccine shortage wont do Bush any favors, but I don't see any major shift in the state from last election - and last election it was as close as can be.
I've done my part, though - one more Kerry vote in those early vote totals thanks to me. :)



by Nate in IA on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 15:07:00 GMT
< Parent >


Thank you for the analysis (none / 1)

I am not sure I agree on Iowa and New Mexico, although I hope you're right. It just seems like throughout the entire polling season the polls in these two states have been more in Bush's favor.
I'm also, like everyone, very worried that the rampant cheating in Florida and Ohio will have an effect. I hope not.

Do you think the Amish voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio will be insignificant statistically? The republican party has really been working hard to get Amish voters and has had a lot of success in PA. There are about 52,000 in PA, 55,000 in Ohio, and I believe 9,000 in Michigan (which I'm sure is insignificant and the ones in Michigan are showing no interest in this election).

Obviously the Amish aren't being polled. When Amish do vote, most vote republican, and there has been a tremendous uptick in Amish registrations. About 25,000 are believed to be registered in Ohio, although how many will vote is an unknown because traditionally they don't vote for presidential candidates.

Bush met with them personally in PA and it really resonated. Estimates in PA are that at least 3,000 will vote. An Ohio member of the Amish community believes 5,000 there will vote but that's pretty anecdotal.

However, there are 2,000 newly registered Amish in Lancaster Co. PA, and I would think if they went to register, they will probably vote.

And you don't look like a meathead. Meatheads aren't usually muscular. :)



by CatM on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 13:50:16 GMT



Great Job Matt (none / 0)

Looking forward to the final installment. I am sick of polls but always enjoy reading your analyses.


by Grand Poobah on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:01:24 GMT



Useful, useful, useful (4.00 / 2)

Since mid-August, Marin County, Calif, with (now) perhaps 160,000 voters, has been running swing state phone banks.
For several months, when it wasn't considered strong for Kerry, we worked with Oregon, but that's behind us. During the past weeks, we've been a solid extension of the Democratic field operations in Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado. (We're banking on split electoral votes in CO).

As of yesterday, 300+ of us have made more than 60,000 calls. This does not include all the Move On activity going on here or the letters to single women being generated out of Bolinas (Main Street Moms Opposed to Bush),

I've forwarded your url to the rest of my swing team, who've been made a tad nervous by the mainstream poll reporting. Should give comfort.

Thank you.

Clark Democrat

by CalifSherry on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:19:23 GMT



Great diary (none / 1)

Very comprehensive
What do you think about the cell phone factor, the cord cutters who don't have land lines and aren't surveyed?

Also, only anectdotal evidence, but your suspicion about the apprehensiveness of poll subjects is spot on. I have two aunts in Iowa who have been polled twice each and they give the GOP line to the pollster out of a (somewhat) irrational fear that Ashcroft will monitor their polling responses. They'll be voting for Kerry in the secret ballot though.



by Zeuscomo on Sat Oct 30th, 2004 at 14:37:11 GMT



oh! (4.00 / 2)

that is fascinating. you know, I think there are a lot of people who are saying "Bush" for reasons like that, or THEIR HUSBANDS are lis

[RevolutionStartsNow]

1. That's a great analysis

I like his approach, and I like the results even more. :)