« Pennsylvania Shifts | Main | Hoeffel in Trouble? »
Monday, August 30, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, August 30
Posted by Chris Bowers(Previous Results in Parenthesis)
National Popular Vote
Kerry: 50.02 (50.43)
Bush: 47.98 (47.57)
Other: 2.00 (2.00)
Status: Toss-up
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 286, 210 solid (281, 180)
Bush: 252, 161 solid (257, 142)
States Changing Party Hands From 2000: WI to Bush; FL, NV and NH to Kerry
States Projected Under Three Points: AR, MO, OH, TN and WI for Bush (58); FL and NV for Kerry (32)
I'm ramping up the GECC for the final nine weeks. From now on, a state--or the race--is considered solid if one candidate is projected to win by six points or more. Also, undecideds are allocated both nationally and for state polls. I split the undecideds 60/40 for Kerry, as per my research on the subject. Call it biased if you will, but it is what I believe. I also believe it is a conservative estimate. After September 18th, when voting begins, I'll start allowing likely voter national trial heats into the formula if no registered voter model is available from the same organization.
Bush continues to close on Kerry. Bush hasn't led in ten weeks. We shall soon see if that streak ends.
Posted at 10:45 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
Comments
Chris,
Have you thought about producing a numbers range? I mean, you may be right about 60-40. But what would the ECC be if it was 50-50 (worst case scenario?).
Posted by: seamus at August 30, 2004 11:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Can anyone recommend a few particular general election calls that are believed to be virtually impartial towards either party? Does such a thing exist? I'm more interested in reality rather than what we hope reality will look like.
Posted by: Pepe at August 31, 2004 06:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Chris, what's your take on Zogby's claim that undecideds are currently leaning 35/10 to Bush?
This poll is internally inconsistent (something we've seen a lot lately -- 23/77 Bush approve/disapprove vs 35/10 Kerry/Bush just doesn't make any sense), but the 35/10 ratio runs so counter to the conventional wisdom that I'd like to hear your opinion.
Thanks.
Posted by: globecanvas at August 31, 2004 10:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It would be better to split the undecideds because it would still give the benefit to
Kerry as the undecided vote plus some of the lukewarm support for Kerry will be moving to
the incumbent by election day unless Kerry has
a far greater lead in the polls then. The
critical numbers are those after the first
debate and g-d forbid a terrorist act in the
US which I believe would be a no win for either candidate as any terrorism would have an equal effect for both sides. It would help Kerry by
showing that Bush hasnt made the country safer and it would hurt Kerry because many would
unify around the incumbent, any incumbent.
Posted by: Bruce at September 1, 2004 11:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Zogby might be right. I know a lot of Bush supporters who think like that. What Kerry needs to do is bring in new voters intead of counting on the support of the undecideds
Posted by: Ed at September 1, 2004 01:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree with Ed...I know many who are just Anti-Kerry instead of Pro-Bush...After the hell of the last 4 years I don't understand why...Kerry has done a poor job of making himself a likable person and strong alternative for voters. This is ultimately a problem with the whole Caucus and primary system (winning in two some what small states should not set the table for your run and seems to cause more problems than anything else) but since this system won't change, there is no point in going on about it. I am curious if Edwards would be in a much stronger position had he won...
Mainly, my concern is that we are relying WAY TOO MUCH on CV for the undecideds. THis is the first presidential election since 9/11 and we do not know if the old CV will hold true. I personally think Chris would be better served at UNDERESTIMATING the undecided breaks...in other words tip it 40-60 Bush. In that case, you know you are in great shape if you have a lead. Any way to run numbers like that Chris and tell us what the results were...I am curious to see using your methodology what the election looks like with a 50-50 split and a 40-60 Bush split in addition to the 60-40 Kerry split. If John can lead in all three...Then things truly look good.
Posted by: Michael at September 1, 2004 04:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
During the primaries, I was convinced John Edwards was the only Democratic candidate who could beat George Bush. Seeing how the "no gravitas" stigma has been pinned to his chest after getting picked for running mate, I've since changed my mind and now believe the American people would have been duped into believing Edwards was unprepared for the job. John Kerry was probably the strongest candidate of the bunch, which doesn't say much for the ability of the Democratic Party to find candidates that have appeal with the American mainstream. I can unequivocally say that Hillary Clinton will NOT be that candidate in 2008 or anytime afterwards. The Dems may almost be better off if Guiliani beats Hillary in the 2006 Senate race since it will take the disable their suicide mission of cluelessly running Hillary in 2008 (in the devastatingly unfortunate event that Bush defeats Kerry in 2004).
Posted by: Mark at September 1, 2004 06:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
During the primaries, I was convinced John Edwards was the only Democratic candidate who could beat George Bush. Seeing how the "no gravitas" stigma has been pinned to his chest after getting picked for running mate, I've since changed my mind and now believe the American people would have been duped into believing Edwards was unprepared for the job. John Kerry was probably the strongest candidate of the bunch, which doesn't say much for the ability of the Democratic Party to find candidates that have appeal with the American mainstream. I can unequivocally say that Hillary Clinton will NOT be that candidate in 2008 or anytime afterwards. The Dems may almost be better off if Guiliani beats Hillary in the 2006 Senate race since it will take the disable their suicide mission of cluelessly running Hillary in 2008 (in the devastatingly unfortunate event that Bush defeats Kerry in 2004).
Posted by: Mark at September 1, 2004 06:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
egal online sports betting baseball betting tactic mlb baseball online betting sports betting exchange betting football jet new york new england patriot online football gambling new england patriot football betting offshore sports betting betting football ncaa tip sports betting links college football sports betting online gambling college basketball ncaa football gambling sports betting bonus gambling line football gambling line sports betting handicappers college football gambling online football gambling site.com baseball betting odds canada sports betting birmingham football betting online football sports betting football gambling ncaa news sports gambling software sports betting rule internet sports gambling internet football gambling ncaa football betting pick sports betting advice basketball betting odds sports betting software as vegas sports betting basketball gambling software
Posted by: Roy at November 12, 2004 07:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment