« Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Endorses Bush | Main | Colorado About-Face? »
Monday, October 25, 2004
The State of the Race in Florida
Posted by DavidNYCBy now, readers of this site are all very familiar with the 50 percent rule: An incumbent president has to be at 50% in the polls in order to win. If he's at 49%, he's looking at a photo finish, and if he's below 49%, he's going to lose. With that in mind, I want to take a snapshot look at all the polls from Florida in the month of October, helpfully provided by Race2004.net:
|
Pollster |
Polling
Date |
Bush |
Kerry |
Nader |
MoE |
|
24-Oct |
48.50% |
46.40% |
--- |
4.10% |
|
|
21-Oct |
46.00% |
46.00% |
1.00% |
3.50% |
|
|
21-Oct |
49.00% |
48.00% |
1.00% |
4.50% |
|
|
21-Oct |
47.00% |
48.00% |
2.00% |
4.00% |
|
|
21-Oct |
46.00% |
46.00% |
--- |
2.00% |
|
|
20-Oct |
49.00% |
46.00% |
1.00% |
3.00% |
|
|
20-Oct |
49.00% |
47.00% |
--- |
3.00% |
|
|
19-Oct |
48.00% |
47.00% |
1.00% |
3.50% |
|
|
19-Oct |
49.00% |
47.00% |
--- |
3.50% |
|
|
18-Oct |
50.10% |
48.90% |
0.30% |
2.10% |
|
|
18-Oct |
50.00% |
49.10% |
--- |
2.10% |
|
|
17-Oct |
47.00% |
46.00% |
--- |
?? |
|
|
17-Oct |
49.00% |
50.00% |
--- |
4.10% |
|
|
16-Oct |
48.00% |
45.00% |
--- |
4.00% |
|
|
15-Oct |
44.00% |
45.00% |
2.00% |
4.00% |
|
|
14-Oct |
49.00% |
45.00% |
1.00% |
3.00% |
|
|
14-Oct |
44.00% |
48.00% |
2.00% |
5.00% |
|
|
14-Oct |
49.00% |
46.00% |
--- |
3.00% |
|
|
12-Oct |
47.00% |
44.00% |
2.00% |
5.00% |
|
|
10-Oct |
48.00% |
48.00% |
1.00% |
4.00% |
|
|
10-Oct |
49.00% |
45.00% |
--- |
?? |
|
|
6-Oct |
49.00% |
44.00% |
1.00% |
3.00% |
|
|
6-Oct |
49.00% |
45.00% |
--- |
3.00% |
|
|
5-Oct |
48.40% |
49.70% |
--- |
2.20% |
|
|
4-Oct |
49.10% |
49.50% |
0.50% |
2.20% |
|
|
4-Oct |
45.00% |
47.00% |
2.00% |
4.00% |
|
|
4-Oct |
48.00% |
44.00% |
2.00% |
4.00% |
|
|
4-Oct |
46.00% |
48.00% |
--- |
4.00% |
|
|
4-Oct |
51.00% |
Posted at 08:00 AM in Florida | Technorati CommentsDavid: In my own Election Day prediction, I require Bush to have at least a 4% advantage over Kerry in a state's polls in order to assign that state to him. The one state I make an exception for is Florida, because of the Bushes' control of the state. I think it's reasonable to think that any close result there is going to be stolen by Bush, no matter how much scrutiny the state is under. That being the case, I've decided that Kerry needs to be ahead by a good margin -- 4%, perhaps -- in order to put the state out of the reach of the misfeasance of the Bush clan. BTW, I've posted my latest (10/24) survey of 62 Electoral College tracking / prediction / projection / forecast sites here. Executive summary: By the evidence of the trackers, the race continues to be tied: Bush has 256-261 votes and Kerry has 253-254. (This is, obviously, not to negate the incumbent rule -- as many have noted, a tie for the incumbent at this point is tantamount to losing.) Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at October 25, 2004 03:21 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Please note the Orlando Sentinel endorsed Kerry in its Sunday editorial. As mentioned in the item this is the first Democrat they have endorsed in 40 years. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped124102404oct24,1,5854545.story Posted by: Jack Linthicum at October 25, 2004 07:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment I know the tracking polls are all over the place ... I've been watching TIPP trend to Bush for days, but Rasmussen has trended mirror-opposite and has Kerry up 48.4-46.4 today, his first lead since Aug. 23. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm Posted by: -jeff at October 25, 2004 12:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment First there was Kerry's two-point lead in Rasmussen after trailing for two months. Now Kerry has taken a one-point lead in the ABC/Washington Post daily tracking poll. MOMENTUM IS BUILDING. Posted by: Willis at October 25, 2004 05:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Breaking news Rassmussen has Kerry and Bush all tied up at 48 all in his latest release. Posted by: godfrey at October 25, 2004 05:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Well, there was a claim that Kerry tends to do well on Sundays because Dubya supporters are more likely to be at church. It wouldn't require a large swing to see some changes on Sunday. I don't think I buy that story though. Polling organizations have been polling for years and presumably have used methods to minimize this effect. Posted by: erg at October 25, 2004 05:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Kerry is going to take Florida and win this election. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Florida doesn't wind up very close this time around, with Kerry winning by +3%. If bush can't get above 50%, Kerry wins FL no problems. The demographics are on his side. Posted by: Rock_nj at October 25, 2004 06:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Do you believe this sh*&%t. Gallup has Bush up 7 in Florida 51-43. Posted by: godfrey at October 25, 2004 07:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Where is this new Gallup FL poll out ? By contrast, Rasmussen has a new poll showing FL dead even. SUSA has a new FL poll out today showing Kerry by 2. Zogby shows Busb by 1 in tracking poll for FL. Posted by: erg at October 25, 2004 07:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Gallup's poll is garbage as always (although they did seem to get close to what everybody else was projecting for Ohio last week...I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day). Florida seems to be trending Kerry's way, but it could always trend back. If there's any justice in this world at all, Bush's numbers will sag after his administration's incompetence in preventing 350 tons of explosives from being stolen from Iraq....but then again, the public refuses to hold this guy accountable for anything. I'm hoping we at least get a couple good poll days from this, and that Kerry can seize on it in Florida and Ohio. I'm not sold on this idea that the incumbent needs 50% support to get re-elected. I don't believe Wayne Allard had anything near 50% poll support in Colorado in 2002, but he prevailed. Plus, we can't be certain these undecideds won't break for Bush after watching wolves racing towards them on their TV screens seven hours before heading to the polls. Certainly if Bush is only at 45%, then he's in trouble, but anything over 47% is far from certain defeat in my opinion. Posted by: Mark at October 25, 2004 07:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Mark: The research about the 50% rule only applies to presidential races. In other races, people aren't as familiar with the candidates, but in a presidential race, everyone knows the incumbent very well (or at least, thinks they do). Posted by: DavidNYC at October 25, 2004 08:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment The incumbent rule makes intuitive sense to me -- its hard to believe that someone who hasn't made up his or her mind on the President after 4 years is going to vote for him in the last few days. Ultimately though, its going to boil down to GOTV. Posted by: erg at October 25, 2004 08:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Many undecideds may come to the conclusion that they have more misgivings about John Kerry than they have of George Bush, so I don't necessarily concur with the idea that last-minute undecideds couldn't possibly break for the incumbent. Hopefully, Kerry can make some persuasive closing arguments to put aside their fears. He needs a few new lines to replace the retreads from his debate, which are starting to grow weary. I hope his writers are working on those as we speak. Posted by: Mark at October 25, 2004 11:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment "Do you believe this sh*&%t. Gallup has Bush up 7 in Florida 51-43." My sentiments exactly. True to form, Fox News quoted this poll and this poll alone this morning with advisors from both camps as commentators. I wish I could hear the response from the Dems on this (the TV in the gym was on mute). I hope those guys go into these interviews knowing the media outlets will cherry pick the polls that look good for Bush. I sat there putting words into his mouth like "if you were to look at the OTHER 4 POLLS released yesterday..." or "if you recall the LAST 27 POLLS taken in Florida..." (Thanks to www.Race2004.net for the quick resource. If you haven't been watching the use of polls lately, take a quick look at the Florida polls on this site.) Posted by: Dan Hogan at October 26, 2004 08:53 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Of all those polls, there isn't one mention of Gallup's measure of the race, which last had Bush up significantly in Florida. Like it or not, Gallup has been around longer than most, and been fairly accurate over that time. You can say what you will about Fox News, but all news organization give preference to one or two polls. CBS has its own poll, ABC/Washington Post have their own poll. The list goes on -- everyone has a poll, and they publicize the polls when they feel it adds to their story. Polls continue to show most races are tight, so when a poll shows a gap larger than the poll's margin of error, it's worth reporting, particularly when the poll comes from a respected outfit like Gallup. Regardless, if the campaigns don't do the job getting their voters to the polls, none of the predictions will mean anything. Given the uncertainty of who will actually vote, I seriously doubt most of the polls, given their vastly different methodologies to determine who will actually vote. Plus -- and I feel compelled to respond to some of the comments made about news coverage -- in response to polls being used by media outlets only when they support Bush: You must only watch Fox News, because other news organizations take absolute glee in reporting when the race narrows or looks to be trending in favor of Kerry anywhere (and they do the same for Bush, although it doesn't seem most news organizations focus quite as much on Bush doing well anywhere). In fact they try to trot out any poll that seems to indcate Kerry is pulling even or ahead of Bush in any state. I don't know if its a Kerry-bias; it's more likely an attempt to drum up even more interest in their coverage of the election for purely monetary reasons -- more battleground states means more people watching means more money for news organizations. I seriously doubt Kerry will pull out Florida, and he's not looking good in a handful of state Gore pulled in 2000 by slim margins. If Kerry can't hold Iowa, Wisconsin (which it doesn't look like he'll do, but I stress, right now), and if he continues to look vulnerable in Minnesota and Michigan, and can't close the deal in Ohio, the race isn't a race, it's a Bush landslide. Even if Kerry can swipe Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa help to offset the loss, and a Bush win in Florida salts the election away. Again, things are tight most everywhere, and what happens on Election Day will tell the tale. However, right now, if we're working off of the polls, it's not looking too good for Kerry. Posted by: Chris Comisac at October 26, 2004 10:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Kerry will win MI. He is up 10 points on Zogby, 5 points on Rasmussen, 7 points on ARG, and even up 1 in the Republican poll (Strategic Vision). He is only down in the Detroit News poll. OH will be close. The Republicans are already trying to suppress new voter turnout by challenging 35,000 new voter registrations in OH. Posted by: DFuller at October 26, 2004 10:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Dan I agree completely. Breaking News ARG hass Kerry up 3 in Florida. Take that Chris!!! Posted by: godfrey at October 26, 2004 11:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Well, ARG has always been slightly favorable to Kerry outside of NH. But I agree that Gallup is way off in FL from every other pollster. When one pollster is so off from half a dozen pollsters, the problem is probably with that pollster. Posted by: erg at October 26, 2004 11:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Chris--you're simply wrong. All of the major networks and cable stations are conservatively biased in their news coverage. Try watching MSNBC or even CNN these days. They want to keep the race close for their ratings, but otherwise they consistently prop up GW's chances. Gallup was grossly inaccurate in the last presidential election, and looks to repeat this performance this time around. The other network polls are not much better. I trust Zogby (not the interactive polls), Rasmussen, and Survey USA over these polls for absolute results, although watching trends even in GOP polls like Gallup, Strategic Vision, and Mason-Dixon can be informative. Posted by: JoshR at October 26, 2004 12:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment I should clarify--these days, making GW look good and keeping the race looking close are the same thing, so the news people can help their ratings and their long-term coprorate interests at the same time. I continue to believe that Kerry holds a significant (though not insurmountable) lead, which mainstream news consciously tries to spin away with its selective polling and misinterpretation of data. Posted by: JoshR at October 26, 2004 12:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Breaking news Strategic Vision has Bush up 2 in Florida and up 1 in Ohio. But what gets me is what the hell is going on with Iowa and New Mexico? States that nearly went for Gore 4 years ago seem to be leaning Bush. When you would think they should be backing Kerry. And NM makes me angry. It shouldn't be close there. THere are two many Latinos in NM that should support Kerry. What the hell is GOV Richardson doing? Posted by: godfrey at October 26, 2004 02:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment godfrey, we haven't seen an honest poll from New Mexico or Iowa in some time...the line on Zogby's state polls move more erraticaly than the spreadsheet of a lie detector test given to Dick Cheney, while Mason-Dixon skews heavily to the right. One recent Iowa poll showed Bush leading by a statistically insignificant one point if I remember correctly. Hopefully, there will be some more reliable poll data from both states in the next few days. I find it very hard to believe Bush leads by five in Arizona, but leads by eight in New Mexico. With so many ballots already cast because of Iowa's heavily Democratic early voting, I'm cautiously optimistic Kerry will sneak wins in both states. Posted by: Mark at October 26, 2004 02:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Strategic Vision is a Republican pollster (a former official Republican pollster, mind you). I would not place much credence in them. I don't like dismissing polls just because I disagree with their results, but I try to ignore partisan polls (both Dem and Republican). If these are their latest results from FL, and OH, they're both 1 point better for Kerry than their poll from last week. They've also been showing PA worse for Kerry (albeit with a 1 point K lead) than almost any other pollster. They've been showing NJ closer than anyone else, just 2 points last week. Posted by: erg at October 26, 2004 02:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment 1) Strategic Vision showing Bush only up 2 in FL and 1 in OH is very good news for Kerry. This is a GOP partisan operation. 2) Bush has always done well among Mexican-American voters. He hasn���t done anything for them, but he gets their votes. Maybe he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in San Antonio or something. I actually asked my friend about why he does so well with the Mexican-America voter who is a Democrat but happens to be a Mexican-American. He said it is because Bush speaks a little Spanish and pretends like he cares about their issues. Posted by: DFuller at October 26, 2004 02:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment A few points: First...the 50% rule does not apply to percentage of the vote...if you remember Clinton's election, he only won 43%....Ross Perot took double-digit numbers in those election (I believe 18%). What the 50% rule applies to is favorability rating...which is done Nationally, and currently has Bush hovering between 51 and 54 percent. As far as the idiot who posted about the weapons cache "missing" in Iraq...the conventional weapons are probably with the WMD that didn't exist either. All that shit was moved to the Bekaa Valley prior to the war....NBC news (hardly a conservative voice in the media) was with the 82nd Airborne when they arrived at the location on April 10, 2003, and the explosives were already gone. In other words, Bush didn't fail to safeguard them...they were already gone. As inconceivable as that must be to those of you who don't believe there were WMD's too. Also, not only is Bush making headway into Iowa, Wisconsin, and maybe Minnesota, but he has also swung HAWAII into his column. Hawaii has only voted for two Republican Presidents...Nixon on his second term and Reagan on his second term. Imagine that. As far as the knucklehead who is bitching about the "disenfranchised" voters in Ohio...gimme a break! First of all, when you have groups like ACORN signing up the same person 148 times, you are going to get 147 challenges...maybe even 148 for that one voter. It's called election fraud, and it SHOULD be challenged. However, what about all the Nader supporters in Ohio, that the Democrats insured are disenfranchised...and that isn't the only state that they will not be able to vote for Nader in. So quit complaining about "stealing" the election. Several groups went to Florida to investigate the "million" disenfranchised voters, and couldn't give one hard example. NOT ONE. BOTTOM LINE...it is looking good for Bush. I have him winning 325 Electoral Votes, but only about 1% more of the popular vote. The Dems will undoubtedly cry foul, and force recounts in about five or six states, because that's how many they will have to change to win. Posted by: John at October 26, 2004 03:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment As far as the idiot who posted about the weapons cache "missing" in Iraq...the conventional weapons are probably with the WMD that didn't exist either. All that shit was moved to the Bekaa Valley prior to the war.... Sure, and you were there and saw it, eh ? How come the Iraq Survey Group, the official report from the US team explicitly says that they have no evidence of any weapons being moved out of the country ? And how come we haven't been able to turn up paperwork, people involved with the transfer, people who actually managed the weapons transfer ?
False. The actual embedded reporter was on TV a while back and she said they did not secure or examine anything at the facility.
Well, you should probably include the Iraq Survey Group, the Senate Intelligence COmmittee, Powell, even Bush, everyone except Cheney in the list who doesn't believe any more there were WMDs there.
False. Several were found. Posted by: erg at October 26, 2004 04:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Sure, and you were there and saw it, eh ? How come the Iraq Survey Group, the official report from the US team explicitly says that they have no evidence of any weapons being moved out of the country ? And how come we haven't been able to turn up paperwork, people involved with the transfer, people who actually managed the weapons transfer ? Funny...the IAEA says they WERE moved...but want it both ways.... A Syrian Defector substantiated the IAEA claims, and several non-partisan, non-US entities have also claimed this it true....you will see...it may take a couple of years...but this point will prevail. The Syrians have two air force bases in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon...they were paid 30 million dollars by Hussein prior to the war to bury the WMD near the bases. False. The actual embedded reporter was on TV a while back and she said they did not secure or examine anything at the facility. That's not what NBC was saying yesterday?! I predict Kerry will win Hawaii comfortably. But you can contine to count on the Aloha state pulling Bush out of the fire. Kerry may actually win Hawaii...which doesn't have much of a record for voting R. Who cares...I have Bush winning by 40 to 60 EV anyway. False. Several were found. By who? And several are far from a million. Oh yeah...one of them was my brother...who coincidentally is at Camp Anaconda in Iraq right now. When he went to register in Jupiter Florida (remember the famous home of the hanging chad?) he was denied permission to register by the Democratic controlled Election Commission there. He attempted to register 45 days prior to the election. Florida law claims you have to register 60 days prior (or so he was told). However, since when does a state law trump a federal law in a federal election? It doesn't. I guess he should have put a D on his form, they probably would have let him register... Too bad they didn't have "provisional" ballots back then. Now the Dems want to disenfranchise his military vote! It's already in the mail...postmarked, I hope. Posted by: John at October 26, 2004 04:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The IAEA says that WMDs were moved from Iraq to Syria by the Saddam regime ? Please provide some documentary evidence other than a link to Urban Legends.
Sure, sure. Just curious, but how come the IRaq Survey Group didn't find any evidence of all this moving of WMD when they published their report ? How come, despite the fact that we have practically every single Hussein regime official (including Hussein himself) in custody, tons of documents from the Hussein era seized, we have no evidence at all of this ? And how come practically all people we have in custody say that Iraq destroyed its WMDs long back ?
You said, they were zero earlier. But then, someone who still believes thjere were WMDs in Iraq that were shipped to Syria, is probably not well attuned to reality anyway. Posted by: erg at October 26, 2004 05:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Here is one link...I would provide the actual IAEA link that I read on THEIR website in July, but it no longer exists...imagine that. http://cshink.com/wmd_in_lebanon.htm I really don't need to prove anything...and the truth is the truth. You can claim what you want, and as many people that choose to keep their head in the sand and believe your point of view, can do that, too. History is on my side. My point will be proven in due time...it may take a year or two...because Syria still controls the Bekaa Valley (haven't you noticed the recent push by the current administration to have Syria pull back from Lebanon?) Do you believe this is just a coincidence. I don't need your approval to know that the WMD is in the Bekaa Valley...I read the IAEA's own report on the issue...I know what I read. It will be verified in due time. That's really all I have to say on the issue. Posted by: John at October 26, 2004 05:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Hahaha, Bush at 325. We'll see whose head is in the sand a week from tonight, dude. Better buy a plane ticket to help get out the Hawaii vote, lol! Maybe you can shore up New Jersey and Washington while you're at it... I've heard that Bush's leads are slipping there too. Posted by: JoshR at October 26, 2004 06:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Spent four years in Hawaii...don't really want to go back. Not a whole lot of moderates in that state. And no conservatives. Posted by: John at October 26, 2004 08:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment The WMD argument is over. None was found. They may find some later, but as of right now we have to go with the evidence at hand. The net result is that we wrongfully caused the death of at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, not 3,000 like the World trade center. That is why they are mad at us. That is why there is no shortage of suicide bombers. They feel like their lives have no value except in attempting to destroy that thing that removed the value from their existences. And the blame lies with Bush. Question: Would you go to Iraq right now or want your son or daughter to go? The crazy thing about this is that most of the people who support Bush would answer resoundingly no to this question. If that is so, then they know this war is wrong. Contrast this to WW2 where the answer to a similar question would yeild a positive answer. Posted by: andrew at October 26, 2004 11:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Hey Bonzo "Coldsteel" John... > NBC news (hardly a conservative voice in the media) was with the 82nd Airborne when First off -- It was NOT the 82nd Airborne genius! Secondly -- Here's a little info from someone who was with that NBC crew (NBC Unit Producer) who disputes that there was an inspection of the weapons dump at the Al Qaqaa facility: >> Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. >> Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially >> AR: Was there a search at all underway or was, did a search ensue for explosives >> LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was >> AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that? >> LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about >> AR: Well, Lai Ling Jew, thank you so much for shedding some light into that situation. We appreciate it. >> http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38885 Now take that crap over to the Drudge driven Freeper blogs... It'll fly there!
Posted by: Tiny at October 26, 2004 11:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment John. Get your facts straight. It was the 101, that went in on the 10th, not the 82nd... Here you are blabbering about how you know everything about it, how your opponents in this thread know nothing AND YET YOU COULDN'T GET THE DANG UNIT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Regarding the incumbant rule. It applies to % of the vote. Clinton got 43% BECAUSE THERE WAS A STRONG THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE. If you count the main party challenger and the third party challenger, you'll see the late undecideds broke for one or the other challenger just as predicted. As far as predicting elections, I bet you predicted, just like your wingnut friends last election, that Gore would lose California and end up with only 92 electoral votes and lose by over 10% in the popular vote. All you've done is call people idiots throughout. But you really ought to get your facts straight lest YOU look like the complete idiot. In a two person race, which this essentially is, if he's under 48, he's done. If he's 48, he's in trouble. If he's 49, he's in decent, though not good shape. Quote from John He attempted to register 45 days prior to the election. Florida law claims you have to register 60 days prior (or so he was told). However, since when does a state law trump a federal law in a federal election? end quote from john. Since the Constitution was written. Duh. The states have the authority to run their elections. Try reading it. The only thing that trumps state election law are the anti-slave and discrimination amendments to the constitution and judicial decisions based upon them. Examples: no poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like. Federal election fraud law of course applies. The recount in Florida (which was pursuant to Florida law, was stopped on the basis it violated equal protection of the laws found in the slave amendments. A 60 day registration period does not violate any of those provisions. So, you're full of it again. We Democrats would like to see that 60 day window disappear. But the R's control Florida, and your buddy got caught in it. Blame your Right wingnuts, not us. You claim we will bury our heads in the sand well according to your own post, you already are. Posted by: Kerrywillwin at October 27, 2004 05:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Pollsters can't survey cell phone-only users
Many cell-only users are young and mobile, a demographic that often doesn't vote. That makes survey researchers confident their polling, which excludes cell phone numbers, reflects the opinions of those likely to have an impact on Election Day. Still, with reports of unprecedented voter registration, many young voters could be flying under the pollsters' radar. "Pollsters don't think the cell phone issue will affect them this year, but they are worried about it," said Michael Brick, a survey methods specialist at Westat, a research firm in Rockville, Maryland. "This may be the last round of presidential elections before it does have an effect." When tracking this year's election, pollsters contact people on traditional phones. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, poll tracker) About 5 percent of all households receive telephone service only by cellular phone, according to a face-to-face survey done earlier this year by the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Among young adults up to age 24, the number is close to three times as high. "Many of these people are not voters," said Linda Piekarski, vice president of database and research at Survey Sampling International, which provides samples for the research industry. "They've always been hard to get into our polls anyway. They tend to be non-responsive." Survey researchers have much more to learn about this group, however, especially its demographic and political inclinations. Posted by: Jack Linthicvum at October 27, 2004 08:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Zogby tracking poll numbers improving with Kerry's momentum: National Zogby Bush 48, Kerry 47 (as I predicted yesterday). Oct 26 (Oct 25) States: The Good WI Kerry +2 (-2) The Bad: FL Bush +4 (+1) Posted by: DFuller at October 27, 2004 08:55 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment More good news on the Zogby tracking poll: John Zogby: "Today was a big day for Kerry, with a 5 point lead in the single day of polling. Kerry has managed to consolidate a big chunk of his base just as Bush has done on his own behalf. Kerry leads 2 to 1 among Hispanics; he is getting 90% of African Americans; 84% of Democrats; 55% of union voters; 65% of singles; and well over 50% of all voters earning under $50K." Posted by: DFuller at October 27, 2004 10:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Looks good, Florida is key. If Kerry can win FL, he would have to lose a whole slew of states to actually lose the election. A FL win would indicate strength. I wouldn't worry about MI, I think Kerry will take that state, as it is a Democratic bastion. MN, IA and WI are tossups. I'd think the Democrats residual strength in that region will ensure a win for Kerry in at least 2 of 3 of those states. Posted by: Rock_nj at October 27, 2004 11:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment MN I think will go Dem. IA and WI are tossups. If Kerry can get one, and OH, he wins (assuming he keeps NM). Posted by: erg at October 27, 2004 11:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Guys word out of Broward County in Florida is that 60,000 ballots absante ballots are missing. I tell you guys they can never get it right in the demcratic counties of Florida. Also in the news Fox and Friends all morning was bitching about how in Ohio more people were registered to vote then actually lived in the counties. They are so damn jealous that the democrates did an awesome job with the get out the vote effort that they want to deligitamize the whole process before next Tuesday. When Bush looses in Ohio you can already hear the whining. One more thing; Tony Snow on the Oreilly show yesterday said Kerry was pulling out of Florida. Can you believe this smear? The guys at Fox are trying to tell dems in Florida to stay home and don't bother to go vote. Posted by: godfrey at October 27, 2004 11:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Hmmm...more Republican propaganda...this stuff couldn't have gone to Syria/Lebanon before the war... http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm And certainly we would have all known if the Russians were in Iraq destroying documents... -Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Posted by: John at October 28, 2004 07:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment On the positive note for FL, Early voting seems to be going well for the Democrats (hopefully those Broward County ballots will be found soon). Quinnipiac University Poll "Among the 16 percent of Florida voters who say they already have cast ballots, Kerry is ahead 56 - 39 percent." Posted by: DFuller at October 28, 2004 10:05 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Broward County to re-mail 76,000 absentee ballots. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10033338.htm Posted by: DFuller at October 28, 2004 10:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment Hey Kerrywilllose- You might want to read this story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136857,00.html You said: "Regarding the incumbant rule. It applies to % of the vote. Clinton got 43% BECAUSE THERE WAS A STRONG THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE. If you count the main party challenger and the third party challenger, you'll see the late undecideds broke for one or the other challenger just as predicted." Read the article...the 50 percent rule applies to favorability ratings. As far as the unit goes...ooops. It was an airborne unit...close enough for government work (or UN inspectors...or ACORN) Posted by: John at October 28, 2004 11:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment |