« New Jersey, Revisited | Main | So We're Leaving Virginia »
Monday, October 04, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, October 4
Posted by Chris Bowers(Previous Results in Parenthesis)
National Popular Vote Projection
Kerry: 49.5 (48.57)
Bush: 48.5 (49.43)
Status: Toss-up
Polls Included: Economist, Rasmussen and Zogby
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 274, 187 (243, 171)
Bush: 264, 209 (295, 190)
States Changing Party Hands from 2000: NH and OH to Kerry; WI to Bush
States Projected Under Three Points: FL, NV and WI for Bush (42, with IA, NH and OH moving to Kerry and WI moving under three points); IA, NH and OH for Kerry (31, with MN moving over three points)
I have had enough of tracking down poll internals. Finding all of the recent Party ID internals had become such a chore, that I came to dread making my projections. So instead of re-weighting by Party ID, I am simply going to limit the dataset to polling firms that share my polling philosophy. Re-weighting by Party ID was always a dubious task anyway, as I explained here. This is not because Party ID is not a demographic (I believe it is), but because Party ID is poorly measured by most poll internals.
So, what polls do I agree with? It is an eclectic group. Among tracking polls, I think Zogby and Rasmussen have things about right. Among weekly polls, I like the Economist. Among less regular polls, I like Harris and the George Washington University Battleground poll. If the National Annenberg Election survey ever produces a trial heat, I will incorporate that as well. I will use the most recent trial heat from any of these sources, as long as the majority of that trial heat was conducted within the past week (possibly NBC and AP as well, but I am still looking into those methodologies). Zogby, Rasmussen and the Economist will always be included.
This will make updating my projections much simpler. I will now be able to produce a new projection every day from now until November 2nd. I am also now allocating undecideds 80-20 in favor of Kerry, and taking leaners to filter out the soft undecideds.. (rationale). Enjoy!
Posted at 03:45 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
Comments
What impact did Thursday's debate have on your Election cattle call?
Posted by: godfrey at October 4, 2004 04:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
A slew of new polls by ABC, Zogby, and Pew Research are suggesting Kerry got virtually no post-debate bounce. Let's hope they're wrong, but I fear they may not be. Kerry needs to sweep these debates with astounding victories if he is to win against this guy, as profoundly paradoxical as Americans' love affair with him is.
Posted by: Mark at October 4, 2004 06:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It's lovely to see you projecting OH going for Kerry. I sure hope so.
So what's quite odd is that in the past week we've gained ground in the presidential race and lost ground in the senate races. A lot of this is because SUSA, which consistently leans to the right, has done a lot of senate polls. SUSA shows Republicans picking up the seats in SD and FL, NC almost tied, and Republicans keeping CO. This is a very depressing (but I think inaccurate) outlook. I have decided to abandon SUSA. After all, even Gallup showed us keeping FL...and every poll except SUSA showed Salazar ahead in CO. Mason-Dixon, which leans a bit to the right too, showed Daschle keeping SD. So, I think we're still fine.
How did you come up with Kerry taking OH and NH, Chris? Did I miss some polls?
Posted by: Nathaniel at October 4, 2004 06:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Gallup (notoriously unfriendly to Kerry) and Newsweek showed a bounce. CBS/New York Times that just came out showed an 8 point (!!) bounce in 1 week.
Zogby doesn't show any bounce, but remember that he was showing the race close even before. Rasmussen is not showing nay bounce, but he had the race within 2 points too.
ABC/Washington Post shows a fair improvement in internals, and a mild improvement overall.
So I think Kerry definitely got a bounce. Hopefully, it'll last a few weeks more.
Posted by: erg at October 4, 2004 06:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Nathaniel, I've been skeptical of SUSA polls ever since one this spring showed Kerry with a one-point lead in California. I'm not putting much stock in them at all now, although they may be slightly less goofy than Gallup this year.
By the way, did you see the Tom Coburn-Brad Carson debate Sunday on "Meet the PRess." Watching it, I got the feeling Oklahomans would be more likely to see Coburn favorably despite his colossal campaign faux paus. As careful as Carson is, he comes across as not only stuffy and (God forbid!) intellectual in rabidly anti-intellectual Oklahoma, he also comes across as gay. I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out, but if the contest remains close a month from now, don't be surprised if Coburn is reduced to publicly suggesting Carson is homosexual because of his quasi-lisp and GQ look. Coburn's loose cannon ways are the Democrats best, and indeed only, friend in this race. I'm not holding my breath for a Carson victory, but would be overjoyed if we got it.
Posted by: Mark at October 4, 2004 08:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think Kerry definitely got a bounce, and he needs to maintain the momentum.
Most up-to-date polls I have seen still show OH for Bush. It's not impossible that Kerry win it, but it will be very, very difficult. OH leans GOP--as lousy as the economy is there in the Buckeye state, Kerry has failed to excite any kind of majority of Ohioans. I expect Bush to win there by about 2% to 5% when it's all over and done with.
Furthermore, OH resembles a Southern State in that I have learned it's never voted for a New Englander for president--not even JFK. The other--and more important--consideration is that this socially conservative state will have the gay marriage amendment on its ballot on election day. I predict a huge turnout from the religious right. It will resemble MO, and it won't be pretty, for gays or for Bush. :~(
Posted by: pepe at October 4, 2004 08:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Oops! My concluding sentence in the above post should read, I predict a huge turnout from the religious right. It will resemble MO, and it won't be pretty, for gays or for Kerry. :~(
Posted by: pepe at October 4, 2004 08:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Re: Ohio -- a couple of recent polls have shown the Bush lead on OH declining slightly to 5-6 %, so the state might not be out of reach.
The depressing piece of news is that the COlumbus Dispatch Poll, a poll with a 2% MoE showed Bush up by 7% in RVs(pre-debate).
Here's a question -- We've been told that in 2000, Gore abandoned Ohio a few weeks before the election on the basis of a double digit lead for Bush, but then lost the state by only 3.5 %. Is this really true, or is there an element of mythology to it ? I.e. could Gore have got Ohio if he had focused on it instead of Fl ?
Posted by: erg at October 4, 2004 08:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Erg,
That's correct. Al Gore abandoned Ohio shortly before the election and ended up losing by approx. 4% However, Gore didn't exactly "focus on Florida" right before the 2000 election IIRC. He came to Pennsylvania a lot.
Posted by: Brian at October 4, 2004 09:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Where are all the religious fundamentalists in Ohio? I see a lot of Catholics. Edwards will help turn out the white Democratic vote in Ohio.
Kerry/Edwards wins Ohio, unless it's rigged.
Posted by: Shar at October 4, 2004 09:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rasmussen has Kerry down by only 1 point in OH.
Posted by: DFuller at October 4, 2004 11:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You don't know OH at all if you don't know about all the religious fundamentalists in the Buckeye State--they are EVERYWHERE, and I'm not talking about Catholics, though there are plenty of those, too. Trust me, you'll see them all voting in record numbers due to the gay marriage amendment.
If Kerry loses OH, it is highly unlikely that it's because the election in OH is "rigged," unless you consider having the gay marriage amendment on Election Day is "rigging" the outcome--I might accept that, as it will definitely influence the outcome. Let's face it, OH's a socially conservative state, and one where religion plays a prominent role. This is why it is a conservative state, socially!
If Bush wins there, it won't be considered an upset--how can it, considering OH's voting history? If Kerry wins there, it will be regarded as an upset. Simple as that. Also, the only voters that usually might be greatly influenced by a vice-presidential candidate are those from the candidate's home state. In this election, not even that will help Kerry win either of the Carolinas. Trust me, Ohioans won't be voting for Kerry because they like Edwards. They'll be voting either for Kerry, against Bush, or for Bush. It's not impossible for Kerry to win in OH, but make no mistake, he is indeed the underdog there, and it has nothing to do with the election being rigged.
Posted by: pepe at October 4, 2004 11:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For those interested, I've posted my latest (10/4) survey of 47 Electoral College tracking / prediction / projection / forecast sites HERE.
Executive summary: A static week, with things fundamentally unchanged from the previous survey. Bush continues to lead with 284 to 291 votes, compared to Kerry's 228 to 243, a margin of about 50 votes, the same as last week.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at October 4, 2004 11:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, the controversy surrounding OH's election being rigged comes from the installation of Diebold voting machines in the state. The CEO of Diebold is on record he will "do whatever it takes to make sure Ohio goes for Bush in 2004." Not exactly the kind of statement that puts one's mind at easy about the integrity of his machines.
Posted by: Mark at October 4, 2004 11:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
More opinions about Ohio:
Ohioans decide right before the election.
Catholics are not religious fundamentalists. They oppose the war.
Ohioans are worried about more wars in the middle east and of the draft.
If a socially conservative Ohioan so desires, he/she will vote for Kerry and vote for the marriage amendment. I suspect that a lot of socially conservative African Americans will vote for Kerry and this amendment.
Ohioans will be voting for Kerry because they like Edwards. In the same way, Republicans voted for Bush because of Cheney. Edwards did very well among white voters in the primaries and I suspect that he will attract Ohio suburban and rural voters.
Posted by: Shar at October 5, 2004 02:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm afraid your opinion on OH and Ohioans is much too simplistic in its interpretation of the dynamics at work. It's too bad that it's not going to be that simple and easy for Kerry to win the Buckeye State. It will be close, regardless of who wins. That said, I think Kerry has a much better chance of winning FL than OH.
Posted by: Pepe at October 5, 2004 09:10 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
I too have always felt that Kerry stands a better chance at FL than OH. FL is a diverse, progressive state, with a large black population...AND, non-Cuban Latinos like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans now outnumber Cubans there. Also, the Republican areas in north and central FL were much harder hit by the four hurricanes than Democratic southern areas like Miami.
OH is socially conservative. It didn't even vote for JFK. The only two Democrats in recent history I know of who won it (besides of course LBJ) were Carter and Clinton, two Dixie boys. On the other hand, registration in Democratic parts of OH (mostly the northeast) has increased 250% since 2000, while it has only increased 25% in Republican areas (such as the south).
Just remember, for Bush to win he will need both of those two, short of picking up, say, IA, WI, and ME, or something like that. I also think it's very possible that Bush will lose NH, which is growing increasingly Democratic.
We need one of three strategies to win. Either we must pick up FL (making us immune to losing IA and WI), or we must pick up OH (making us immune to losing WI), or we must pick up a bunch of small states (most likely NV, NH, and something like CO or WV). I think that if we pick up one of the two biggies (FL or OH), then NH will come along for the ride.
I still don't understand why, Chris, you have called OH for Kerry. I have seen almost all polls showing Bush with a small lead there. Gallup is the only pollster I know of which consistently shows Kerry doing better in OH and Bush doing better in FL. Usually, FL is more friendly to Kerry than OH...if you don't, of course, count registration numbers.
If OH goes for Kerry on November 2, I won't feel shy about saying that WV could go for him too...they are similar in many ways. In fact, I think of the whole OH-PA-WV area as one state in some ways. They all have a lot of rural areas and industry, though OH and PA have major cities, which WV doesn't have.
I think, though, that if Kerry gets OH (and Mr. Diebold doesn't pull what he's trying to), he will almost surely get something like NV or NH too.
However, it will help that Nader's not on the ballot there. Now, we must get him off of PA and (maybe) FL!
I still don't have info on that elector in WV. Nobody's told me: is he going to cast his vote for Kerry regardless or is he just going to waste his vote on Nader, Badnarick....? Or is he voting for Bush no matter what? I'm really curious.
Any House polls??? Please??? KY-04, GA-12, TX-32, CA-20??? I'd really like to get info on these races and I'm not going to shut up until I do.
Posted by: Nathaniel at October 5, 2004 11:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
CLinton's victory in Ohio was probably helped a lot by Perot on the ballot as well. So even it may not have been representative.
WV -- the democratic party has a lot of strength on the ground, so I think the state might be easie than Ohio.
Posted by: erg at October 5, 2004 11:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ohio - I agree that Kerry has a high hill to climb in traditionally conservative and Republican Ohio. He can do it with a good get out the vote effort, and if people decide they don't like the economy. Clinton won because of Perot.
Florida - Did you know that Cubans in Florida are indicating that they're only supporting Bush by 69%. That's a 15% drop from 2000, when 84% of Cubans voted for Bush. That might sound insignificant, but when there are approximately 400,000 Cubans who go to the polls each election, a swing of 15% translates into around 50,000 more votes for Kerry in Florida!!!
At this point I think it's more a matter of how much Kerry will win Florida by, not if he will win. I can't see Bush carrying Florida with 50K Cubans defecting to the Democrats, with no voter-purge rolls this time around, with a more diverse populace, with a Democratic party that's riled up to win, etc. It's hard to say how the hurricanes are affecting the race, it does help Bush's PR machine, but in the end I think Kerry wins just on demographic shifts.
Posted by: Rock_nj at October 5, 2004 12:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Nathaniel, all I've heard about the House races you elude to is circumstantial. Nick Clooney has reportedly scored better than expected in Kentucky's fourth district, but seeing as how it's the most conservative district in what's become a solidly conservative state, he has his work cut out for him. Even Ken Lucas, a very conservative Democrat, barely eked out a win there in 2002. No polls on the Martin Frost-Pete Sessions race to my knowledge, but Larry Sabato rules it a toss-up as opposed to three of the other four redistricted Texas House races which he cites as "leaning Republican." I don't know anything about the Georgia and California races, although the Democrats should have the advantage in the Georgia district against Burns given its demographics, particularly with a higher turnout on a Presidential election year.
erg, I'm far less optimistic about West Virginia than you. I just get the feeling most of us have no sense of the speed at which that state's politics are to shifting to the right. I can't see Ohio going Bush and West Virginia going Kerry. Hopefully, I'm wrong though.
Posted by: Mark at October 5, 2004 12:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark, I agree that West Virginia is probably not going to fall into the Democratic column next month. WV is trending towards their neighbors to the South, it's just taken them a little bit longer to become more Republican. WV is culturally tied to the South. The deep roots of the Democratic party in that state have kept them in the Democratic column in recent years, but that's changing. WV is a very pro-military and traditional state. Both cards that play right into Bush's hands. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if WV is more or less a lost cause for the Democrats for the foreseeable future. Unless there is a major recession or something that puts them back into a Democratic sort of economic frame of mind, they're going to vote on cultural issues that favor Republicans.
Posted by: Rock_nj at October 5, 2004 01:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
rock, I agree with you about WV. I still think it should be a Kerry target this year in the hopes we can eke out one last narrow victory, but I have thought it was odds-against from the very beginning. West Virginia's economy is essentially in permanent recession. The coal industry is doing fairly well now, but there are only like 16,000 remaining coal jobs there today, a shell of what it is back in the day. Furthermore, the already battered-bloody northern WV steel industry is likely to be non-existent in another 10 years regardless of whether Kerry or Bush is elected. West Virginia is becoming less and less politically significant with its stagnant population and is likely to lose another electoral vote in 2010. It's always tragic when economic devastation in rural America actually shifts political sentiment of those in despair towards those of the people doing them harm, but that appears to be the case in West Virginia these days.
Posted by: Mark at October 5, 2004 01:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My parents still both live in an urban part of the Mahoning Valley (northeastern OH), in the same city where they were both born and raised. My mom is voting for Kerry, my dad for Bush. My father believes, like nearly everyone, that Kerry won the first debate. However, my father is a social conservative, like many Buckeyes. For that reason, he is voting for Bush. Why is that? All because of the Supreme Court. He wants a conservative court, not a liberal one. I mention this because I think this might reflect why OH, whose economy is a wreck, is not embracing Kerry like outsiders might expect. Again, social conservatives will be coming out in droves to ban any recognition of gay marriage (just like they already did in MO), and in doing so, nearly all of them will also be voting for Bush.
WV, which is far more rural than OH and PA (there is no significant city or urban area there) is even more socially conservative than OH and PA. Politically it was an anomaly until recently. It's a very poor state that voted Democratic probably due to its poverty and lack of opportunity. However, the social issues are becoming ever more dominant there, especially God and guns. This state appears to be following KY in moving away from the Democrats and into the arms of the GOP for now and the future.
Posted by: Pepe at October 5, 2004 01:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
What will likely determine OH on 2 Nov will be GOTV and how well Kerry does in Columbus and the Southeast Counties. In 2000 Gore carried Franklin County (metro Columbus) by only 1000 votes and in the 4 years since the county has been trending Democrat. Apparently new voter registration in Columbus and the surrounding counties has been very high to boot so that could add another dynamic to the race here. If Kerry does very well in Columbus with GOTV, keeps it close is some of the surrounding Central counties and can pick up more of the Southeast counties than Gore did, combined with strong GOTV in the Northeast Counties, Toledo and Dayton, he will have a shot at picking up Ohio.
Posted by: Gene at October 5, 2004 02:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Nathaniel: I do not know if there are any polls for TX-32 but at this point I honestly don't care if Martin Frost wins or not. The Sessions - Frost campaign has been extremely negative. In my opinion, Frost crossed the line yesterday when he ran an advertisement with images of the Twin Towers burning. I live in TX-26, but if I were in TX-32 I wouldn���t be voting for Frost.
Posted by: DFuller at October 6, 2004 09:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment