An unlikely, but accurate election indicator???

[Vegetable Man]

I'm watching the last final minutes of the matchup between the inept GB Packers vs the Washington Redskins. Now, it goes that the last 'skins home game before the election has always called the Presidential election since 1936.

When the Skins have won, the incumbent has won, when they lose, the challenger wins.

And even though I don't care who wins the game(or the election), it looks like GB has just won it, thus keeping in line with my theory that Kerry will walk away with this election.

[YellowKing]

Yeah, it's a shame this will end the prediction streak.

Also, just out of curiosity, where are you Kerry folks getting your numbers? Every indicator I've seen shows Bush walking away with this election, not Kerry.

[Fireball]

Bush walking away? Even the Bush-leaning Election Projection is pointing to a Kerry win.

Slate? Kerry win.

Electoral-Vote.com? Kerry win.

Aren't you the one operating under the notion that undecided voters will flaunt all historical trends and vote for the incumbent?

[triggercut]

Sorry to rain on the parade, but today both Election projection and Electoral-vote both show Bush winning.

Newsweek has Bush up by 5, and on the 50 mark.

trigger's fearless election night projection: Bush 286 EV, 49.5 of the vote.

[YellowKing]

Aren't you the one operating under the notion that undecided voters will flaunt all historical trends and vote for the incumbent?

We have two circumstances that tend to negate that effect - the fact that we have an extremely small number of undecideds compared to previous years, and the fact that we are in the midst of an ongoing war. I just don't think it's accurate to say, "Undecideds break for the challenger, Kerry wins" without taking other indicators into account.

Heck, I'm not the only one saying it. Pundits have been arguing that point for weeks, with some saying the undecideds will break for the challenger while others insist the effect is unknown this year with the high emphasis of the war on terror.

[Fireball]

Sorry to rain on the parade, but today both Election projection and Electoral-vote both show Bush winning.

That's not entirely true.

http://www.electoral-vote.com. Current tally, Kerry 283, Bush 246. Projected election day tally, Kerry 291, Bush 242.

The Republican-leaning Election Projection just updated in the last ten minutes, now showing a Bush lead, but his Oct. 30 update showed a Kerry lead.

Slate continues to show a Kerry lead, and signs of weakness for Bush in Florida.

Newsweek has Bush up by 5, and on the 50 mark.

Newsweek has been high for Bush the entire campaign.

trigger's fearless election night projection: Bush 286 EV, 49.5 of the vote.

Entirely plausible. But that's not walking away with the election.

I will post my final prediction at my website at midnight Mon-Tues central standard time.

[Fireball]

We have two circumstances that tend to negate that effect - the fact that we have an extremely small number of undecideds compared to previous years, and the fact that we are in the midst of an ongoing war.

Yes, but there is also the potential (and from the long lines at polling locations, I'd say a good one) that Bush's bungled war has mobilized a lot of Democratic voters. Those folks, most of who didn't vote in 2000, don't show up in almost ANY of the polling models and are an x-factor that might well be

I just don't think it's accurate to say, "Undecideds break for the challenger, Kerry wins" without taking other indicators into account.

I agree. That's why I think that Kerry's undecideds margin will be down from the traditional 2 to 1 levels. I'm keeping a running spreadsheet analyzing polls from 14 possible swing states. I was intending to use a 25% no-vote and 57 or 60% Kerry split to factor them in for my final prediction. Given the current state of the race, I'm now estimating a 33% no vote and a 55% Kerry split.

I don't see any reasonable measure by which undecideds, who are undecided specifically, in part, because they don't like how Bush has conducted the war, split majority Bush. I could see an even 50-50 split, but based on the numbers I'm using (from major polling groups, leaving out polling firms which are partisan in nature), even that doesn't quite get Bush where he needs to be.

[Meghan]

In re the OP - no the Skins game doesn't mean diddly although it's good for a few chuckles.

I made a prediction a few days agao that I think Kerry is goign to win big. This post here by Daily Kos contributer mattb25 is a good summary (and much more coherent than I could produce) of why I think so. In short, I agree with predictions regarding Ohio & Florida especially and I think MI & PE are going to go blue too.

I mention this not to persuade anyone, but just to explain my own thinking on the subject.

[CSL]

Polls IMHO are meaningless at least for predicting who will win, on an individual state-by-state basis they have merit to indicate trends, etc, but on a national level predicting the outcomes totality isn't really gonna work IMHO.

On election day I predict most polls will be off by quite a percentage, really it may be the young voters that decide the election. And i'm pretty sure a majority may be in the Kerry side of things. If the 18-24 voting block can get over the apathy except big things. And with MTV, actors and other entertainers spouting the word to get out and vote i'm expecting a LARGE turn out.

[Crabbs]

Yeah YK Bush is gonna walk away with this election....

/Dr_Evil_Voice On

Riiiight.....

/Dr_Evil_Voice Off


I guess that is why BC04 (Bush/Cheney 04) is going to HI to try to poach 4 EV becasue they are safely coasting in to victory...

I guess that's why GWB has in the last 48 hours started to PLEAD for any crossover Dems to give him that edge even thogh he doesn't need it....

Bush might win, but I think saying he is going to win handily is true delusion.

Edited for Spelling and clarification of sarcasm

[Eel Snave]

I guess that is why BC04 is going to HI to try to poach 4 EV becaue they are safely coasting in to victory.

It's like, it's trying to talk to me, but I just can't understand it.

[YellowKing]

All I know is that for the past few weeks, polls have shown Bush consistently ahead - sometimes within the margin of error, admittedly, but in an average of all the polls, ahead of Kerry.

Electoral college indicators for the most part over the past few weeks have given the edge to Bush.

Several states that Gore won in 2000 have become new swing states, with a Kerry win entirely up in the air. Rasmussen has had Bush with an electoral college lead since August. Leading economists have almost unanimously predicted a Bush win.

Polls show Kerry failing to capture the same percentage of women, minority, and youth vote that Gore captured in 2000.

Yet somehow Kerry has the momentum. Ok.....

Of course I don't know who's going to actually win. Maybe Kerry will win in a landslide. Who knows. It just confuses me when people come on here and post how likely it is Kerry's going to win, when everything I read and watch on the news either takes a "wait and see" position or gives the edge to Bush.

[setaside]

There are so many unknowns this time around that I don't think anything BUT a wait-and-see attitude is the right one. As mentioned, there may be a LARGE mobilization of young voters this time around. Chances are those young voters aren't being polled due to cellphones or pollsters general feeling that youngin's don't vote. There may be a larger than normal overseas mobilization of voters, and not just military. I personally think that the military vote won't end up anywhere near as republican as in the past. The electronic voting machines could cause some serious issues if my tinfoil hat starts tingling on election night. Any number of the various voter fraud accusations could come true to swing some numbers. Who ... knows. I'm guessing that election night will not end on Nov. 2nd.

[Defiant]

.

[Fireball]

All I know is that for the past few weeks, polls have shown Bush consistently ahead - sometimes within the margin of error, admittedly, but in an average of all the polls, ahead of Kerry.

And some polls have shown Kerry ahead. The only polls which have shown Bush to be markedly ahead are likely voter polls based on the Gallup data, which is not weighted for partisanship nor geographic factors like the data from basically every other poll on the planet, and has been a major outlier this year.

Does Bush appear to have an edge among voters who've made up their minds as of right now? Perhaps, but a very minor one. Far smaller than the edge he appeared to have this time four years ago. Remember, this time four years ago, most polls showed Bush pulling AWAY from Gore, when in the end the opposite was true.

Electoral college indicators for the most part over the past few weeks have given the edge to Bush.

They've been up and down crazy. Which is to be expected given the methodology of most of the sites. Some also show a partisan coloring. Slate is where I pay most attention to, but I don't take it as Gospel. Its shown a tight race ever since the debates.

Several states that Gore won in 2000 have become new swing states, with a Kerry win entirely up in the air.

By my count, there are generally 14 states considered swing states this year... MN, NH, PA, MI, WI, OH, IA, FL, AR, NV and NM, with CO, NJ and HI on some lists. Of these, 10 were also swing states in 2000. Of the remaining four, NJ, HI, AR, CO, two went to Bush last time, two went to Gore, and none are really likely to switch this year (in fact, in the past few days polls of CO and NJ have broken strongly towards the winning parties from four years ago).

Rasmussen has had Bush with an electoral college lead since August.

Rasmussen does not assign votes from states that are close. Does Bush have a larger rock-solid base? Undeniably. That's where, I think, his popular vote margin will come from -- deep wins in the deeply red states.

But being way, way, way ahead in Kansas doesn't give him any sort of edge in Ohio.

Leading economists have almost unanimously predicted a Bush win.

Economists are not political scientists.

Of course, neither are football players, but I didn't leave home for lunch today until that stupid game was over. And, as a gay man who hates football with the fiery passion of a thousand suns, that was quite a sacrifice.

Polls show Kerry failing to capture the same percentage of women, minority, and youth vote that Gore captured in 2000.

Some polls. Other polls show differently. Most polls also show Kerry leading heavily amongst new voters, particularly young voters, which do not show up in most likely voter polls (and almost never in Gallup-based LV polls).

Yet somehow Kerry has the momentum. Ok.....

Kerry has momentum. So does Bush. Both are in about the same place. It's a ground and turnout war from here until 7:00 EST 11/2.

Of course I don't know who's going to actually win. Maybe Kerry will win in a landslide.

No one's gonna get a landslide.

Based on best and worst case scenarios, you could see a 306-232 Kerry win, or a 296-242 Bush win, and not much beyond that. If around 55% is a landslide to you, then I suppose that's a landslide, but I think you need to get up into the 320 electoral vote range before applying that term.

t just confuses me when people come on here and post how likely it is Kerry's going to win, when everything I read and watch on the news either takes a "wait and see" position or gives the edge to Bush.

Based on the polling numbers available, Kerry has a measurable edge in 8 of the 14 swing states (NJ, MN, NH, PA, MI, HI, WI, OH), including pretty hefty momentum margins in 3 of them (NJ, MN, NH). If he wins all 8 of those states, he wins very narrowly. Bush has an edge in four (AR, NV, NM, CO), with two of them basically locked up (NM, CO), and two remain totally unpredictable -- probably entirely based on turnout (IA, FL).

But that's with polling numbers current until today. Check back with me tomorrow and midnight for my up-to-the-last-minute predictions.

A frighteningly large portion of my education has centered around this sort of stuff -- electioneering and electoral analysis. I can't promise you that all the indicators available are correct, but I can honestly say that the indicators I have available to me (which include both publicly and not publicly available polling data) indicate a Kerry edge.

Based on what I have before me, I know that analysis is proper. Whether what I have before me is representative, it is polling data after all, remains to be seen.

[Meghan]

fireball, what do you think of the notion that incumbents with win big or lose big? I hadn't thought much about it before to but I read something that made me wonder.

[Defiant]

.

[Defiant]

.

[Fireball]

fireball, what do you think of the notion that incumbents with win big or lose big? I hadn't thought much about it before to but I read something that made me wonder.

That's not always the case, as was pointed out with Ford and Carter. But more than that, previous elections have taken place in periods of partisan stability or realignment. What we're dealing with now is a period of political dealignment and a lack of any sort of electoral majority (of the populace, not the College, variety) for either side. There is no majority party in the United States. The Democrats have a small identification advantage, but weaker turnout rations. It's a situation where neither side can get any sort of leg up, and that breeds very close elections (look how close the Congress is and how close 2000 was) and that's unlikely to change anytime soon.

America's political alignment has been a timebomb for decades, and it's now starting to explode.

Because of Watergate, the Republican realignment that should have taken place in the 1970s didn't even start to take place until the mid-1990s. But then the emerging Republican majority blew it's load with the massively unpopular impeachment drive against President Clinton, halting the realignment. The Republican drift in the electorate in the 1990s was self evident... it's why Clinton didn't win a majority in 1996, why the GOP took the House and Senate and governships... by all rights, had they not latched onto such a damagingly unpopular agenda, the GOP would be the majoritarian party at present.

But since the job was only halfway done, we're in a period of incredible partisan tension, which breeds more vehemence, which pushes the centers of the two parties out farther from the middle and thus worsens the situation. The Democrats have done a better job at resisting the siren calls of the wingnuts, but John Kerry is clearly more liberal than Bill Clinton was in 1992. But not nearly to the degree that W. is more conservative than his father.

George W. Bush had a chance to cement a majority coalition for the GOP in the aftermath of September 11. However, instead of use his immense post-crisis political clout to take the GOP and move it to the center, Bush's team tried instead to cement the GOP on the right and move the electorate to match. By and large, this effort has failed.

I think a better, more moderate, more thoughtful Republican presidency would have been more effective, and would be coasting to reelection right now on the strength of an emerged Republican majority (yes, I'm looking at you, Senator McCain, the president who should have been). But because Bush's strategists tried to reposition the voting electorate instead of their own party when they had the chance, that doesn't seem to have happened.

So we're in for close elections and lots of animosity until one of the two major parties can forge a new majority coalition. That's one reason I support Kerry... I think he might be able to do that on the Democratic side, and Bush blew his chance to do it for the GOP.

[SuperHiro]

So we're in for close elections and lots of animosity until one of the two major parties can forge a new majority coalition. That's one reason I support Kerry... I think he might be able to do that on the Democratic side, and Bush blew his chance to do it for the GOP.

Kerry's my candidate... but I really really really doubt that he will be able to bridge the gap. The only way he can is if he gets a mandate through an overwhelming victory, which at this point seems to be unlikely.

My guess is that any such bridge building will come in 2008, when the more palatable candiates (McCain, a retooled Dean campaign, Biden...) come forward. If Bush wins reelection it's going to be a very nasty four years. If Kerry wins we get gridlock. Not to mention the bloodbath that will be the Supreme Court nominations.

[Fireball]

So we're in for close elections and lots of animosity until one of the two major parties can forge a new majority coalition. That's one reason I support Kerry... I think he might be able to do that on the Democratic side, and Bush blew his chance to do it for the GOP.

Kerry's my candidate... but I really really really doubt that he will be able to bridge the gap.

If he can refocus and wage a more successful war on terror, particularly on Al Qaeda, then I think Kerry could do it. Particularly if the GOP tries to block him, he could turn it into a "give me the Congress I need to win against Osama" battle in 2006. It's an outside chance, but there are a lot of ideas bubbling on the edge of ready for prime time in left-leaning think tanks, and that's the source of new electoral coalitions. We'll see (or at least, I hope we'll see).

[Meghan]

Interesting. Thanks for your thoughts, Fireball. As I say, I'm inclined to think Kerry will win big. I hadn't considered that incumbent margin though.