« It's Ginny Time | Main | Ginny Update: We Did It! »
Thursday, September 23, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, September 23
Posted by Chris BowersNational Popular Vote Projection
Kerry: 49.02 (49.38)
Bush: 48.98 (48.62)
Status: Toss-up
Polls Incluided: Economist, Harris, Pew, Rasmussen and Zogby (unweighted); CBS, IBD, Gallup (re-weighted)
Recent Polls not included: Democracy Corps, George Washington, NBC, NDN
Electoral Vote Projection
Bush: 295, 158 solid (284, 196)
Kerry: 243, 186 solid (254, 197)
States Changing Party Hands from 2000: IA and WI to Bush
States Projected Under Three Points: FL, IA, NV, NH, OH and WI for Bush (73, with NV moving under three points and IA and NH moving to Bush); ME CD-2 for Kerry (1, with OR and PA moving over three points and IA and NH moving to Bush)
Right now, the story is clearly that Bush seems to have a slight edge almost everywhere in the battleground. Kerry leads in both solid states (186-158) and in states projected by more than three (242-222). However, Bush has actually increased his share of the electoral vote, and taking IA and NH from Kerry. Altogether, a massive 137 electoral votes are projected for Bush by less than six points. Thus, my projections run contrary to the media narrative on the race. Rather than the battleground shrinking, it is as large as ever.
Posted at 02:28 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
Comments
Republicans in Congress think they are above the Constitution.
WASHINGTON (AP) ��� The House passed legislation Thursday that would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on whether the words "under God" should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance.
In a politically and emotionally charged debate, Democrats said majority Republicans in the chamber were debasing the Constitution in order to force a vote that could hurt Democrats in the election.
Supporters insisted that Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage.
The bill, which was passed 247-173, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases involving the pledge and its recitation and would prevent federal courts from striking the words "under God" from the pledge.
Posted by: DFuller at September 23, 2004 03:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
That's why smart people vote democrat! and conservative religious fanatics vote GOP!
Posted by: teddy at September 23, 2004 03:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Supporters insisted that Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage."
I will be curious to see how the Supreme Court interprets the constitution for this piece of legislation. I can't see even the hard liners like Thomas and Scalia agreeing to limit the courts power to interpret the laws. Plus, I just re-read Article I and there is NOTHING about Congress having the ability to limit the Judicial branch. This gets struck down with a capital STRUCK. Damn, they are getting dirtier and dirtier. I used to like Hastert, conservative but respectable; he has lost his damn mind as of late (almost like he is trying to become another Jesse Helms)...must be hanging around that monster delay. Amazing we still support something that was born from McCarthyism. Unreal....I actually heard one talking head who said that we should pass an amendment on the pledge as well, so that court can't alter it from its original form. Man, I would have laid the smackdown if I was the moderator.
Posted by: Michael at September 23, 2004 04:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Chris, you need to now take into account the ARG poll of all 51 states (50 plus DC). They show every state staying the same except for FL going to Kerry and IA to Bush, and with WV and WI tied.
I've almost abandoned the presidential race, not because I think Kerry can't win, but because I think control of Congress could have a much bigger effect.
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 23, 2004 05:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am a smart religious republican, but I am not a fantic.
Posted by: David at September 23, 2004 08:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This is Eight Grade Civics stuff- checks and balances.
As cut and dried as anything I've seen in a long time...
Posted by: Steve at September 23, 2004 09:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Republicans who are not fanatics should be smart enough to know that Bush is not a true conservative. Smart republicans should vote for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian for president. Bush does not deserve your vote.
Posted by: Wilson97 at September 23, 2004 10:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
hey it`s nice to be positive but unless kerry destroys bush in the debate the race is over.it`s obvious people don`t really want to re-elect bush but they also don`t want to elect kerry. again the democrats pick the wrong candidate.kerry jsut doesn`t play
in mid america!
Posted by: JOEL at September 24, 2004 08:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry does not need to destroy Bush in the debates. He just needs to make a decent showing and show that he has a plan for the future. According to the latest Gallup poll, 56% of the people are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States. Only 47% of the people think Bush deserves to be re-elected. As long as Kerry shows that he has a decent a plan for the future, he will win the election because everyone is sick of Bush.
Posted by: dfuller at September 24, 2004 09:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As long as Kerry shows that he has a decent a plan for the future, he will win the election because everyone is sick of Bush.
Unfortunately for us, not "everyone is sick of Bush." In fact, something like 91% of his supporters say that they like him, and that's why they're voting for him. A far lower percentage of Kerry supporters say they are voting for Kerry because they like him. It's much more a vote against Bush than a vote for Kerry.
Don't count on the debates to sway the election one way or the other. I'm basing this on the debates between Gore and Bush. We all thought that's where Gore was going to destroy Bush, who can barely articulate a sentence. And yet, Dubya wound up in the White House.
If Bush wins re-election, it's not because the country wants four more years of Dubya, but rather Kerry was the wrong challenger. For the life of me, I don't understand why Joe Biden didn't run. If he had, I think the race would be pretty much over by now. Sigh.
Posted by: Pepe at September 24, 2004 09:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
The main reason for the weak pool of Democrats this year is because no one thought at this time last year that Bush was beatable. He had favorable ratings in the 60's last year at this time. Bush���s numbers have dragged down because the lack of jobs that he promised and the disaster in Iraq. I will admit that I would much rather have a candidate other than Kerry running. In July and August he was too passive and seemed more interested in trying to not lose than to win, he hasn���t articulated a constant message on Iraq, and really hasn���t articulated much a message on how to revive the sluggish economy.
Kerry is only 2 - 3 points behind Bush now in spite of himself. There are still about 10% undecided voters too. The reason they are undecided is because they haven���t made up their mind yet on Kerry. They already know what they think about Bush. Kerry needs to take the free advertisement of the debates and capitalize on them. In my opinion, Kerry should be locked up in a room with his advisors all weekend to fine tone his debate strategy. It is much more important at this point to show well in the debates than make some campaign stops.
Posted by: DFuller at September 24, 2004 09:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I was reading the postings and I think the debates are more important than some are saying. I think people are looking for a reason to vote Kerry, he just hasn't provided one yet. I hope this is because he is waiting to really hand Bush his hat at the debates. I would love to see Kerry use his intelligence and wit to lay out a plan voters can latch onto and to show American voters just how lame Bush's ideas are. I think there's a reason the debate rules state that the candidates can't ask each other questions. It's because Kerry will ask questions of Bush and Bush will hang himself with his answers.
Someone (not sure who) said not to count on the debates creating a swing because that's when we expected Gore to trounce Bush. There is a bit of difference between these debates and those. First of all, the republicans told every idiot with a pen that Gore would trounce Bush in the debates. The only way Bush would have failed to meet expectations is if he had fallen off the stage and killed a grandmother. When Gore lost to Bush it came off as a bigger deal than it was. American's expectations of Bush are a lot higher this time around. Kerry is also known a poor debater. I think this bodes well for us. If Kerry can give Bush a hard time during the debates and layout a plan for the future I think this race will look very different in October.
Secondly, The debates start off with the subjects Bush polls strongly on and it ends with Kerry's stronger subjects. If Kerry at least ties with Bush during the first debate I really think the rest of them are ours. I don't think anyone thinks Cheney will beat Edwards (I hope this isn't a Gore/Bush repeat) and everyone who has spoken one-on-one with Kerry have come away liking him, so the town hall meeting should be our too. The last debate is on domestic and economic issues. I think Kerry starts out ahead on these (although the domestic issues might be a bit of a challenge)as long as he explains where he's coming from, we should be good here too.
I'm hoping he's waited for the debates to lay out a plan in order take away Bush's ability to develop a response. Like I said I hope this is what's happening. I guess we'll see.
Posted by: Jason - Charlotte at September 24, 2004 02:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
By the way, I heard something about an elector in West Virginia. Is he "faithless"? Any info?
Thanks.
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 24, 2004 04:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Guys, why not start doing something positive instead of continuously griping about Kerry as a candidate? I've put out Kerry yard signs, placed some bumper stickers on cars, and even helped register Kerry/Edwards first time voters.
There's nothing like a fresh batch of Kerry-Edwards yard signs to bring on some more Kerry signs, including yard signs from the opposition. ;)
Posted by: Shar at September 24, 2004 09:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I have a Kerry bumper sticker on my car and yard sign in the front yard. Here in Chapel Hill and Durham, NC, over 90% of the bumper stickers and yard signs are supporting Kerry. Too bad the rest of this most beautiful state in the nation isn't more like hip and liberal Chapel Hill and Durham!
Posted by: Pepe at September 24, 2004 10:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Maybe instead of "hip" how about radical and out of touch?
Posted by: WistheOne at September 25, 2004 07:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hey, I like John Kerry very much. That media spin that is is boring is the same crap the GOP pulled in 2000 with Gore. When are we gonna stop letting the mainstream press control things?
Posted by: john at September 26, 2004 12:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Most everywhere you turn in the media polls and on the news, the expectation is for a Bush landslide this November. Seems the battles are almost entirely being waged in the former Gore states, with NJ, PA, WI, IA, MN, NM, and OR up for grabs. Meanwhile the Bush states from 2000 seem more red than purple, with the exception--maybe of NH, though several polls are even showing NH might be voting for Bush again in 2004. It's not looking good, but until the debates are over, it's not over. I have heard that Kerry is not a great debator, but he's going to have to do very well, and hope that Bush screws up in some major sort of way. I really thought Kerry would be more inspiring than what I've seen so far. That's been a huge disappointment. He's just unable to consistently get out his message in a way that strongly resonates with the majority of the American people. Such a shame we didn't have a better candidate. I believe there is also a 9/11 factor in play, which explains why states like NJ and PA are looking increasingly more promising for Bush.
Posted by: Pepe at September 26, 2004 01:39 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Wilson 97, I agree, Bush has been anything but "conservative". He's spending money like a friggin drunken sailor, he's increasing government in a major way. You can call Bush a lot of things, but conservative isn't one of them. I agree Badnarick is they guy who true conservatives, people truly interested in smaller government, should be voting for.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 26, 2004 08:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush has turned the Republican party on its head. Not only is he a big spender, but he also wants a much bigger government that plays an increased the role in peoples' everyday lives. No better example of the latter than the fact that he opposes equal rights for gays. What business is it of the George Bush and our government to tell gays they cannot marry and have the same rights as everyone else?
Bush is very scary.
Posted by: Pepe at September 26, 2004 11:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Don't forget Florida. That is a state Bush "won", which is a dead heat this time. Also, Democrats in Florida are energized, which should aid in the GOTV effort. There is a better chance in this state (I am from Florida) for Kerry to win, than not. Even Cubans (who voted incredibly 81% for Bush in 2000) are upset with Bush's Cuba policy. If Kerry can get anywhere close to the 40% that Clinton got from the Cuban vote in 1996, he will get Florida, which will be a gain of 27 votes. He only needs to pick up 10 to win the Presidency. So with a gain of 27, he can afford to lose an Iowa, or a Wisconsin, or a Minnesota, and still win. He can't lose all 3, but he can lose 1 or 2 and maybe still survive. He is going to need Pennsylvania though. If he loses that, and wins Florida, he will actually net 6 votes from 2000, meaning a pick up a New Hampshire will get him to 270, provided he holds all the states. There are many ways for him to win. Clearly though, if he starts losing states like New Jersey, which looks close, but I think will end up in his column, he is not going to win anyway. Also, don't worry too much about polls. This is from Mark Shields article: "One of the smartest Republican professionals I know in Ohio confided that he feared the GOP "needs a 5-point lead in the polls heading into Election Day" to counter what he sees as "the Democrats' intensity" and organizational commitment in the Buckeye state." Let's hope so. If Democrats outwork Republicans, Kerry will be president.
Posted by: Miami_Man at September 26, 2004 05:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The most important decision that Kerry will
have to make after November 2nd is what to
wear to President Bush's re-inauguration next
year.
Posted by: pragmatist at September 27, 2004 03:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Let's just hope a miracle happens and Kerry comes out of the debates very strong. I really don't expect the debates to move the electorate much one way or the other, but this could be Kerry's final chance to gain momentum. If he loses it or just remains status quo after the debates, I'm afraid it's over.
Posted by: Pepe at September 27, 2004 03:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment