2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 8/2/2004

TradeSports.com ^ | Monday, August 2, 2004 | Momaw Nadon

[ableChair]

I would suggest one ignore the weighted probabilities assessments on the grounds of, well, mathematics. The problem with it is that it assumes an unpolarized electorate. In other words, the probabilities in the range of 50-60% in favor of Bush are artificially low when weighted in this manner. In a polarized electorate (even if only slightly so), probabilities tend to truncate, not distribute evenly as the math here assumes. What you are seeing in this weighted calculation is an excellent example of SOPHISTRY. Please remember this technique, liberals use it often.

[Momaw Nadon]

The problem with it is that it assumes an unpolarized electorate. In other words, the probabilities in the range of 50-60% in favor of Bush are artificially low when weighted in this manner. In a polarized electorate (even if only slightly so), probabilities tend to truncate, not distribute evenly as the math here assumes.

Could you please explain what you just said in English?

;^)

[Momaw Nadon]

[ableChair]

Let me try it this way, and perhaps some semantics explanation is in order. When I think of polarization I'm cheating because I'm thinking of it in two different ways. One way to think of it, as most people probably would, is that it means that a population is evenly divided between 2 or more choices. But another way to think of it is in terms of voter commitment: How strongly do those polling in favor of Bush or Kerry feel about their choice, or, what are the odds that their choice today will be reflected on November 2.
Let's examine the first definition. Assume you have a highly polarized electorate BUT there is a small percentage of undecideds. In most elections, even though the general population may be highly polarized, the undecideds are NOT. They usually end up disproportionately favoring one candidate over the other. This is precisely why they are undecided in the first place: they are malleable to that candidate which speaks best to the middle. One or the other candidate will usually win out in that regard. This, right now, favors Bush and the probabilities should be weighted to reflect this; i.e. they should be truncated, not evenly distributed between 0 and 100%.
But the other sense of polarized is much more telling. If you show today that 51% of the electorate in Ohio will vote for Bush, hypothetically, then it is NOT necessarily the case that Bush has a 51% probability of winning Ohio. Why? Thinking up an ideal, extreme example may help you see this. In reality, it's not that extreme, but the extreme example can help us see the in-between reality. Sooo, assume Ohioans are absolutely committed to Bush: they'll never change their minds no matter what happens between now and November 2 (many voters are indeed like this nowadays). Then the odds of Bush carrying Ohio are exactly 100%!!!, not 51%. In other words, the probabilities have truncated. In reality, since all Bush supporters are not like that, the true probability lies somewhere between 51 and 100%.
What the data you have is actually doing is assuming that the polls can be infinitely in error. In reality, they only have about a +/-4 percentage point error range. Consequently, the weightings are just weightings of how much we believe polls, not who's going to win.

[MattinNJ]

Kerry's fall back position is to win all of the Gore states and pick off N.H and W.V.(He needs both). He will make a push for Ohio but if it looks like he won't get it by Spetember expect to see him shore up the Gore states and spend every dime and minute in W.V. and N.H.

Although I think it will be a Dubya landslide, Kerry's fall back position is pretty smart. N.H. is a neighboring state and W.V is traditionally a Democrat state. (I know people flee to N.H from Mass. because of the taxes and W.V is falling in line with the rest of the south and has a lot of veterans). Still, it's not a bad hill for him to make his last stand IMHO

He started pulling ads out of a lot of states like Az., Co., La., and Mo., that he was still very much competitive in.

[COEXERJ145]

The funny thing is that several polls have shown Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to be tossups or even Bush slightly ahead in a few of the polls and yet all three states are shown mild to strong for Lurch.

[Hollywoodghost]

Psychic freiend of mine says that Bush will win by three states. He will secure the popular vote as well as the electorial votes. Something really big is going to happen in September--around the 24th---Then something else on October 11th. These will change the outcome of the race dramatically.

[The_Macallan]

Colorado is poised to really mess things up by splitting their electoral votes 5 votes for GWBush, 4 votes for Kerry - rather than all nine votes for GWBush as projected by all polls.

That would give Kerry 271 and the win.

Be afraid - be very afraid.


Plan would dump Colorado's winner-take-all vote in Nov.
Colorado could become the first state to scrap its winner-take-all system of casting electoral college votes for president and replace it with one based on a percentage of the popular vote.

The measure would go into effect immediately for this year's presidential battle if voters approve.

[ableChair]

In reality, since all Bush supporters are not like that, the true probability lies somewhere between 51 and 100%.

In the interests of fairness and completeness, I should add that this same analysis applies to the Kerry side. But really what is happening is that the candidates are 'trading off' voters from each other's solid camp. This 'trading' follows the same rules as it does for undecideds; i.e. it will usually be disproportionate (and right now favors Bush).

[Momaw Nadon]

Thank you for your insight and analysis.

[VRWCmember]

I would suggest one ignore the weighted probabilities assessments on the grounds of, well, mathematics. The problem with it is that it assumes an unpolarized electorate. In other words, the probabilities in the range of 50-60% in favor of Bush are artificially low when weighted in this manner.

The other problem from a mathematical perspective is that with the probabilities showing Kerry at greater than 90% chance of winning both California and New York (which may or may not be accurate), this gives way to much weight in the weighted probabilities to these two states. Since the electoral votes are not distributed based on the percentage of each state, applying this weighted average formula is almost the same as simply taking the popular vote percentages and applying them to the electoral college. Since reality doesn't work that way, the weighted probabilities assessment is irrelevant.

[Momaw Nadon]

The measure would go into effect immediately for this year's presidential battle if [Colorado]voters approve.

What are the odds that this measure will be passed?

[ableChair]

Colorado is poised to really mess things up by splitting their electoral votes 5 votes for GWBush, 4 votes for Kerry - rather than all nine votes for GWBush as projected by all polls.

I, for one, will be voting against it.

[Salvation]

I don't think Kerry will take Oregon.

[ableChair]

Agreed; we are applying a smooth distribution of probability to one that is inherently weighted...the electoral college.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Can he tell me who will win the AUburn-LSU game on September 18th...TIA...

[01]

Tradesports started a "popular vote" contract in addition
to the one on the winner of the election. Yes, it shows
Kerry with a 53% chance of winning the popular vote (with
Bush at a 53% chance of winning the election).

[Paleo Conservative]

The political futures seem to be a trailing indicator of what the polls are saying.

Well what's the point of a futures market that trails other predictors?

[cogitator]

Kerry's fall back position is to win all of the Gore states and pick off N.H and W.V.(He needs both). He will make a push for Ohio but if it looks like he won't get it by Spetember expect to see him shore up the Gore states and spend every dime and minute in W.V. and N.H.

I think that they'll concentrate on Florida, Ohio, and Missouri: close states representing 58 electoral votes. And they all have large cities where they could do a hard get-out-the-Dem-vote push with concentrated block-by-block effort.