Some personal post-election analysis...

[RunningMn9]

I was just reading an article on MSNBC that pertained to my pre-election analysis, so I thought I would share:

No spike in youth vote.

You'll recall that I suggested that the key to the election was bucking two historical trends. The way that undecides break, and the laziness of the youth vote.

In my analysis, I suggested that the key to a Bush victory was undecideds *not* breaking for Kerry (breaking the historical trend that suggested they would break for Kerry), and the trend of the youth vote being very vocal, but very laze would have to continue.

I haven't seen any data or analysis on the way the undecideds broke, but it seems that the youth stayed lazy (or were countered by more adults voting too I guess).

The other note was the NJ numbers. My detractors wisely (and correctly) pointed out that the Quinnipiac poll was crap, and that NJ was a 7-point race. But the effect on the national popular vote was significant (as well as other states). That NJ closed from 16 to 7 points (or 8, forget the last count) in the past 4 years was bad news for Democrats.

And finally, I would like to thank John Kerry for not dragging this out. That would have been ugly, even if justified in the sense that he wanted to see every vote counted.

I don't know that we've seen the last of him (besides the fact that he is still the Senator from MA). And this move will help him in the future with undecideds (if not from the angry Dems that want to keep fighting a losing battle here).

[Defiant]

I haven't seen any data or analysis on the way the undecideds broke,

They broke for Kerry:

WHEN DID YOU DECIDE WHO TO VOTE FOR?
Bush/Kerry/Nader
Today (5%) 44% 53% 2%
Last Three Days (3%) 41% 56% 1%
Last Week (2%) 51% 48% 1%
Last Month (10%) 42% 55% 1%
Before that(78%) 52% 47% 0%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

[YellowKing]

From what I read, Kerry won the undecided vote, but by a smaller margin than expected. So the trend was there, but tempered by other factors (probably the war on terror and an economy not nearly as bad as the Democrats wanted it to be.)

[Tareeq]

Edan I'm too tired to read your link, and this isn't meant to be snarky.

Are your exit polling numbers based on the same polls that so woefully mispredicted the result? If so, what good are they?

If not, carry on soldier.

[The Preacher]

I haven't seen any data or analysis on the way the undecideds broke,

They broke for Kerry:

WHEN DID YOU DECIDE WHO TO VOTE FOR?
Bush/Kerry/Nader
Today (5%) 44% 53% 2%
Last Three Days (3%) 41% 56% 1%
Last Week (2%) 51% 48% 1%
Last Month (10%) 42% 55% 1%
Before that(78%) 52% 47% 0%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ ... lls.0.html

The problem is that the undecideds were "supposed to" break 2:1 for the challenger, not ~1.2:1 (or however you blend the numbers).

[Defiant]

Edan I'm too tired to read your link, and this isn't meant to be snarky.

Are your exit polling numbers based on the same polls that so woefully mispredicted the result?

Did they mispredict, or were they misinterpreted - remember, the early exit polls that we saw here shouldn't have been taken seriously or used to predict the race.

Anyway, I computed the results of CNNs exit polls from their vote-by-party question. I got Bush getting ~50.5%, Kerry getting 48.5%. Not exactly correct, so they could be suspect, but they're also close enough that it could be the result of rounding error.

Anyway, these are the same exit polls that showed that there was no spike in the youth vote, too.

[LordMortis]

And finally, I would like to thank John Kerry for not dragging this out. That would have been ugly, even if justified in the sense that he wanted to see every vote counted.

I don't know that we've seen the last of him (besides the fact that he is still the Senator from MA). And this move will help him in the future with undecideds (if not from the angry Dems that want to keep fighting a losing battle here).

I think will be good for him to continue with any respect as a senator, but running for president again would be a losing a battle, so it is the last of him in that respect. What I think it is good for is his party. It shows that they are learning to get along and trying to make things work better for the country. If they continue to show that their interests are in a united states while the repubs still act as if all of their piss poor decisions are a mandate of the people, then the dems will gain steam, IMO. It still won't be enough to convert me as I am very much philosophically opposed to the democratic party belief system. But I am one among 300 million.

[Kraken]

I don't know that we've seen the last of him (besides the fact that he is still the Senator from MA).

Well, speaking as a Masshole, I hope he goes back to lurking in Ted Kennedy's ample shadow. Before this campaign, I didn't even know his name. I suppose he'll be insufferable now.

[RunningMn9]

I think will be good for him to continue with any respect as a senator, but running for president again would be a losing a battle, so it is the last of him in that respect.

Well, much to Ironrod's dismay, this turn of events provides him with an opportunity to step outside of TK's shadow to become a leader in the Democratic Party. If he does that, who knows. If he goes back to the same old Kerry, then I agree with you.

But this move leaves that door open, rather than closes it.

Regarding the exit poll data on the Undecideds. I was told that historically, the undecideds would break for Kerry by a 2:1 margin. That was the trend I was talking about breaking. If the Preacher's math is correct, and the actual trend was 1.2:1 - then I was correct on both points. Bush did much better than expected with the undecideds, and the youth are still lazy (or were drowned out by greater adult turnout).

Don't try to steal my predictive skills!!

[Defiant]

I was just reading an article on MSNBC that pertained to my pre-election analysis, so I thought I would share:

No spike in youth vote.

Then again...

STAMFORD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 3, 2004--Smackdown Your Vote!(R) today congratulated 18-to 30-year-old Americans on voting in 2004 in numbers not seen since the 1970's. The turnout of adults ages 30 and under represents the highest turnout by younger voters in more than a decade, 4 percentage points higher than the previous peak year of 1992.

The Smackdown Your Vote! partners, including World Wrestling Entertainment(R) (NYSE:WWE), Youth Vote Coalition, Citizen Change, and the League of Women Voters, had set goals of (1) getting 20 million 18-to 30-year-olds to vote in 2004, and (2) achieving an increase of 2 million more voters age 30 and under in 2004 compared to 2000, both of which were achieved.

At least 20.9 million Americans under the age of 30 voted in 2004, an increase of 4.6 million over 2000(1), and the turnout rate among these voters rose from about 42.3 percent to 51.6 percent, a sharp rise of 9.3 percentage points, according to final national exit polls and an early tally of votes cast compiled by The Center for Information & Research on Civic Leaning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Voter turnout by younger voters was especially high in the contested battleground states.

link

[Fireball]

Edan I'm too tired to read your link, and this isn't meant to be snarky.

Are your exit polling numbers based on the same polls that so woefully mispredicted the result?

Did they mispredict, or were they misinterpreted - remember, the early exit polls that we saw here shouldn't have been taken seriously or used to predict the race.

Actually, the exit polls were correct. What went "wrong" with them was that websites like Drudge ran the MORNING exit polls as if they were representative of the whole day. The morning polls were only a partial sample, Democrats tend to vote earlier in the day and the margin of error was greater. The final exit polls very closely reflected the final break down of the race.

[rrmorton]

From what I read, Kerry won the undecided vote, but by a smaller margin than expected. So the trend was there, but tempered by other factors (probably the war on terror and an economy not nearly as bad as the Democrats wanted it to be.)

You know, we don't really want the economy to be bad.

(But yes, I know what you were getting at.)

[RunningMn9]

What went "wrong" with them was that websites like Drudge ran the MORNING exit polls as if they were representative of the whole day.

I wouldn't blame Drudge too much. After all, the Kerry campaign misused them too, much to their dismay around 9 pm.

[Fireball]

If anyone cares, I've posted the first of my election reaction posts to my weblog, this one analyzing where my prediction calculations went wrong.

I will also deal with where Kerry failed to do what he could and a look at what helped Bush win and whether he has any real sort of mandate.

[Yankeeman84]

According to Fox the exit polls were crap. The EP's, according to them, showed a closer race in Ohio and Florida. They even had Kerry ahead and things looked favorable for Kerry.

Again, this proven that we do not need to listen polls since most are shit anyway. Good point on Quinnipac RM9, that poll was fucked up along with Zogby.

[Fireball]

Don't listen to the dunderheads at Fox. They're misrepresenting the situation, again.

The exit polls are not designed to project winners for one thing. For another, the results in both those states are well within the margin of error for the polls, even though that's not what they're designed to do.

The early morning exit polls were off. The final exit polls veered in much closer to the actual final result. The exit polls were, as they have been in the past, quite sound.

[Snow]

Don't listen to the dunderheads at Fox. They're misrepresenting the situation, again.

The exit polls are not designed to project winners for one thing. For another, the results in both those states are well within the margin of error for the polls, even though that's not what they're designed to do.

The early morning exit polls were off. The final exit polls veered in much closer to the actual final result. The exit polls were, as they have been in the past, quite sound.

Well, I'll defend the "dunder heads" at Fox because I'm frankly tired of seeing them misrepresented. They've not misrepresented the exit polls. If anything, most of the expert commentary and analysis have mirrored what you said. They've questioned how the exit polls could go so bad, but that's far from misrepresenting the situation.