No, I don't - but I do like precision.
FWIW, I think all of this back-and-forth is just pissing in the wind. GWB is quite clearly following the trajectory of incumbents who've lost in the past and his campaign situation doesn't even remotely resemble those who've won - much less those who won landslides.
The only real question is whether this election will hold true to form with past elections, because GWB will only win if it does not. I don't know the answer to that myself and so I have no real opinion on the matter. 2002 did not hold true to past form so people can take some solace in that.
We'll see what happens. Maybe this will be one of those occasional exceptions to the historical rule.
I think a lot of the old "rule book" on elections went out the window in 1992.
In 2002, Wayne Allard consistently polled in the low 40s against Strickland. Under Poly-Sci 101, that should have made Allard a dead duck with undecideds going to the challenger. Simply didn't work out that way...
Elections in Georgia didn't turn out the way anyone expected either. Even in countries like India, we're seeing elections turning out in ways that no one predicted.
The situation is and will remain fluid.
There was some precedence for 2002-- with Clinton winning in 1998 despite expectations to the contrary. Also, that 62% job approval rating on Election Day 2002 made a prediction of a GOP night not exactly off the wall. If Bush were at 62% now, no one in their right mind would be predicting a Bush loss.