« Rasmussen Florida Poll Shows Kerry Leading | Main | Bush Lead Narrows Sharply in Wisconsin »
Thursday, July 08, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, July 8: Early Edition
Posted by Chris Bowers(Previous Results in Parenthesis)
National Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.42 (51.38)
Bush: 47.58 (48.62)
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 316 (291)
Bush: 222 (247)
States Changing hands from 2000: FL, NH, OH and WV
Let the bouncing begin! Kerry is on the brink of taking over Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada and North Carolina. As Kerry���s numbers continue to rise during July (almost inevitable), Colorado, Louisiana, Tennessee and Virginia could also turn from the dark side (maybe Arizona too, but things are looking pretty pro-Bush there right now). If the popular vote projection shifts just a few more points (likely), Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Oregon and Pennsylvania could all turn deep blue, bringing Kerry up to 281 solid electoral votes.
VP and convention bumps are temporary, but I am going to enjoy this while it lasts. July is going to be fun.
Posted at 02:23 AM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
Comments
The July bounce will push Kerry over the top in many swing states. The important thing is that he gets a substanial lead, so when the Repubs do their thing in NYC, the impact is muted.
Posted by: Rock_nj at July 8, 2004 08:38 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
OK, I guess this is my problem with your methodology. I know you've hung your hat on it, but it concerns me that national numbers can rise (do to the Edwards bump), and on the basis of a state-by-state partisan index you're willing to say that all these swing states are going rise as well, without any indication by in-state polling (yet) about what the actual effect "on the ground" is going to be. It seems to me that you're generalizing on a generalization and applying the results with more specificity that it may be able to bear.
It's a little like trickle-down economics theory saying that when the tide comes in, all the boats will rise. That's a wonderful little analogy, but it turns out that some of the boats are just stuck in place and never move, so the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
I guess I don't see how the general numbers/partisan index method accounts for local conditions or specific circumstances adequately. Doesn't it assume that states are static entities that are going to perform as they always have, not dynamic communities of people whose feelings and opinions can change based on circumstances and events?
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 8, 2004 02:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ed-
Sort of. I see no rational reason that "states" can be understood as discrete entities that function either as a block vote or as something separate from the state next door. The partisan index in fact reveals that local targeting is, in the end, largely ineffective, and that changes of more than five points as a result of local targeting are extremely rare. The big exception is in the case of "favorite sons."
We live in a naitonal and international news cycle now, rather than a local one. Very little local politcal reporting is done anymore. A paper in Syracuse, NY will have the same AP story and photo as a paper in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Also, there is no polling information so far in this cycle, with the exception of North carolina, that seems to imply that states have moved significantly away from their 2000 index.
On election night in 2000, Illinois was seen as a close state, because of the recent polling. However, the partisan index proved far more accurate thant he polls--Illinois was a Dem blowout. I feel that it is important to temper the semi-randomness and frequently large error associated with state polls by combining them with the historical background provided by the partisan index. Together, they can prevent each other form being outliers.
Posted by: Chris Bowers at July 8, 2004 03:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
We live in a naitonal and international news cycle now, rather than a local one. Very little local politcal reporting is done anymore. A paper in Syracuse, NY will have the same AP story and photo as a paper in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
True, but this comment rather assumes that political reporting plays a distinct and important part in setting political positions within a state, and I'm not sure that is the case. Or, rather, if they are influential, it's not so much by direct action as through the dissemination of information and opinions by trusted friends and relatives. These people create attitudinal bottlenecks and can be extremely influential, and they, in turn, are influenced by the attitudes and opinions they grew up in and which surround them.
I suppose I'm positing something like a "butterfly" effect, where a small change in community attitudes can have a magnified effect through the activities of these (relatively invisible) "influencers". It's true that a state is (with some monocultural exceptions, such as Utah) probably too big to be thought of as a "community", but surely each state's voting and political positioning is the sum total of that of the communities within it, and no state is equivalent to any other in its compostion, even states whose partisan indices are numerically the same. That means they could easily behave differently as conditions change and not move in lock-step simply because the same numbers have historically applied to them.
Maybe I'm stretching a point too far, but (as I've posted before) it bothers me that your cattle calls are so relatively volatile, apparently due to high sensitivity to the latest data you plug in. It seems to me that a more useful predictive system wouldn't be quite so sensitive and volatile, and would show instead slow and steady progression towards a more and more accurate prediction of the final status of the system being examined.
Just my relatively uninformed opinion, and not meant to be derogatory towards your efforts, which I appreciate very much (and which I've quoted numerous times on my weblog).
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 8, 2004 04:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Just to clarify, the "volatility" in this instance is not so much in the cattle call itself as in your prediction of big changes to come in many of the swing states.
And, for the record, I'd be as pleased as punch if it turns out that you are correct and Kerry-Edwards starts to make big gains throughout the battleground states.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 8, 2004 04:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think all pundits (blog and otherwise) are being much too rigid in their prognostication of the 2004 prez outcome. It is very rare that voter intent remains frozen for an entire campaign.
The conventional wisdom is that the USA is sooooo evenly divided between the Reps & Dems. Only 537 votes out of some 105m gave GWB the White House! (plus or minus 40,000 of course). And look at the Kerry v Bush numbers for the last 5 months - how perfectly divided! It���s going to be such a "squeaker"!
Rather, most likely, forces currently in play will unfold and effect the outcome. The list below is a shorthand summary:
--Likeability factor: Bush/Cheney trend downward; Kerry/Edwards trend upwards
--Trust of integrity: B/C down, K/E up
--Confidence in leadership: B/C down, K/E up
--Policy approval: B/C down, K/E up
--Values approval: B/C down, K/E up
--Regionalism (i.e. Edwards' Southern appeal) B/C down, K/E up
--News events (Guantanamo torture worse than Abu Graib, more Halliburton shenanigans, anti-American incidents in Athens, etc): B/C down, K/E up
--"Let's throw the Bums out!" factor: B/C down, K/E up
--"Gosh, I'm a super-liberal, the Dems and Reps are just the same, what do you mean I "gave" the White House to Bush by voting for Ralph?" Leftist pinko friends, yes, you did give it to Bush, but this time you've hopefully wised up: B/C down, K/E up
--Afterglow of 9/11 patriotism: Come on GOP, you can milk 3,000 dead for only so many years
--Fear of the "evil ones", "let���s hope Bush protects us all from danger" factor: Was anyone afraid of the Cincinnati Mall Bomber last month? Says Ashcroft, "he (CMB) was even thinking about it!!"
--Campaign Performance factor (blowing the debates, bizarre outbursts, etc): Me thinks Cheney's f-word eruption and reply of "it felt good!" is a harbinger of funny panicky stumbles by our GOP duo.
--Hope for Osama's 2nd attack on the USA: How can the GOP's dream October Surprise not backfire? If Osama & friends hit us again, are we now going to rally around the "Mission Accomplished" Man a second time? Americans will be furious. And wised up to any ghoulish political opportunism. "Manchurian Candidate" anyone?
--Voter passion: I have never seen the Dem's more united in my lifetime. (maybe not since FDR?) The Rep's are falling apart.
(a personal note: As a fence-sitting centrist independent, I am donating and campaigning for the first time in my life. My Dad, a lifelong Goldwater/Reagan Republican, a GOP campaigner and fundraiser much of his life, refused for the first time ever to donate to his party. Says Dad, "I don't understand what those two are doing to this country")
*************
My point?
I kind of wonder that come November we may have ourselves a blow-out.
Now of course Bush/Cheney will always have Idaho and Utah, let's be realistic. But think, if only 7% of voters switch, then 49%-49% becomes 56%-42%. Ask Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and Al Gore about voter realignment late in the campaign. Ask the Bush pollsters about the 91% approval on 9/12/2001 and its slow slide to 45% by June 2004.
If the voters' revolt happens, the two Johns will win not only all the swing states but even some of the moderately strong Bush states, such as Georgia.
*************
You read it hear first: Bush/Dick wins the following states:
Alaska 3, Idaho 4, Montana 3, Utah 5, Wyoming 3, North Dakota 3, Nebraska 5, Kansas 6, Oklahoma 8, Texas 34, Mississippi 6. That's it.
The cliffhangers will not be Florida and Wisconsin but Indiana, South Dakota, Alabama and (yes!) Texas.
A fantasy?
Which way does the wind blow?
Election 2004:
President Kerry: 459
never-elected George: 79
the entire planet will cheer.
Posted by: jogabr at July 11, 2004 04:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
baseball gambling basketball sports betting pro football online betting nfl football betting american football betting nfl football gambling spread online basketball betting football sport book betting betting football ncaa tip sports gambling information betting bill buffalo football nfl online football gambling las vegas online football sports betting college football betting spread birmingham football betting betting bill buffalo football online buffalo bills football gambling egal sports gambling online baseball betting pick football betting forum basketball sports betting college football sports betting nfl gambling football gambling football betting guide football gambling site college basketball betting basketball gambling ncaa ncaa football gambling spread sports gambling forum football gambling online tip sports gambling tip
Posted by: Ralph at November 12, 2004 02:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment