Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 8/16/2004
TradeSports.com ^ | Monday, August 16, 2004 | Momaw Nadon

Posted on 08/16/2004 6:40:18 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: JFC

Correction. if Bush loses or if we lose the house or senate, we all lose.


21 posted on 08/16/2004 7:01:30 AM PDT by Conservomax (There are no solutions, only trade-offs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon



22 posted on 08/16/2004 7:01:54 AM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Well, not only the markets but every predictive tool we have. Both Ray Fair (economist) and Alan Lichtman (Dem. political scientist) have models predicting a Bush blowout.

Lichtman's model has never been wrong. Fair's model failed to "predict" (even looking backward) every election in the 20th century except 1992, in which he said he failed to take account of the Perot factor.

My next little task is to start examining the 2000 polls and finding out how far off they were. I know the 1996 polls were all, EVERY ONE, off, some by as much as 8% points, and EVERY ONE, without exception, was off in Clinton's direction. Does anyone really think the pollsters have significantly changed their methodology since then? Quite the contrary, Zogby has not USED his methodology that got him the best results of all the pollsters, and has gone to an internet "interactive" self-selecting poll which is utterly unreliable.

Furthermore, we now have direct evidence (Missouri and exit polling from the CA primary) that the polls have BADLY underestimated GOP turnout. This was further confirmed by the CA special election, where EVERY poll had Arnold with, at most, 28-29% of the vote, and he got over 50%. These are critical points when considering the gap between the predictive models and the pollsters. My money is on the predictive models.

23 posted on 08/16/2004 7:02:03 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
The convention and other things (low UE numbers, troop withdrawal in Europe, the fact Kerry is a dork) will help push Bush ahead in the weeks to come, IMHO.

The Convention will most likely do nothing in the long term - a short 7 day blip at beast (IMHO) -

As for the low UE and other economic successes - The GWB reelection team has got to get this message out!! - in a coherent, forceful and positive way! - GWB must stop saying "how hard it has been, but we are growing" - (the economy has been roaring back over well over 18 months now! - Start talking like it) -

Losing the premise on the economy last OCT was a big mistake - We should have set the premise as "the economy is good" and left Kerry to trying to sell Americans that it is bad........Yet we let Kerry and the DEM's set the premise as the economy is bad......and we are trying to sell the American public that it is really "good" in the next 80 days (bad mistake) -

24 posted on 08/16/2004 7:03:20 AM PDT by POA2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LS
The polls for the Colorado primary were also off. Coors was almost always expected to win but most polls only gave him a 5%-8% lead. I think he got somewhere close to 60% of the vote.
25 posted on 08/16/2004 7:05:58 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (I Annoy Buchananites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LS
My next little task is to start examining the 2000 polls and finding out how far off they were. I know the 1996 polls were all, EVERY ONE, off, some by as much as 8% points, and EVERY ONE, without exception, was off in Clinton's direction. Does anyone really think the pollsters have significantly changed their methodology since then? Quite the contrary, Zogby has not USED his methodology that got him the best results of all the pollsters, and has gone to an internet "interactive" self-selecting poll which is utterly unreliable.

Incumbents that win.....are leading outside the MOE - So the notion that ALL the polls are off just doesn't hold water -

And in 2000 most pollsters were off in GWB favor at the end (but the point there is it was all within the MOE) -

GWB needs to start taking a small but significant lead (4pts or more) and do it soon and continually -

This race is a complete toss-up at this point - and the GWB reelection team does not have a coherent, effective message on the economy (this is killing him) -

26 posted on 08/16/2004 7:06:03 AM PDT by POA2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: POA2
The GWB reelection team waited way to long to get in the game

That's absolutely ridiculous.

And you act as if this race is Kerry's to lose. Sheesh! Take a long hard look at this projection, which I think is pretty accurate. Kerry has a realistic shot at removing OH and FL from the President's column. That's about it. Maybe NV, CO or NC, but that's really stretching it.

Now look at the states the President has a realistic shot at removing from the Kerry column: NM, NH, IA, MN, WI, WA, OR, PA, MI, and maybe even split ME.

Yet I'm supposed to be worried about the President's position? Oh brother.

27 posted on 08/16/2004 7:07:08 AM PDT by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: POA2
The Convention will most likely do nothing in the long term - a short 7 day blip at beast (IMHO)

And it is just that, your usual negative opinion.

28 posted on 08/16/2004 7:08:08 AM PDT by COEXERJ145 (I Annoy Buchananites)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: POA2

I don't think Reagan led by outside the MOE, but it's irrelevant. Whatever accuracy the polls had in 1984, they NO LONGER HAVE. They are totally unreliable. Explain the Arnold polls. Explain the failure to predict the outcome in Missouri, or the GOP turnout in CA, which was significant.


29 posted on 08/16/2004 7:15:20 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
The Convention will most likely do nothing in the long term - a short 7 day blip at beast (IMHO)

And it is just that, your usual negative opinion.

NO - that is called reality and we better be prepared for it! - The fact is because of how the Media is only slightly covering the conventions.....along with the publics uncaring attitude over them......the notion that GWB is going to get a large bounce that holds is just silly.

And it is a notion that the GWB reelection team...nor us in the grass-roots should be expecting! -

You need to start facing reality - A coherent, effective campaign needs to get underway in context with the economy by the GWB reelection team or this race will be a toss-up right until 11pm on Nov 2nd -

GWB ads in MI are awful - Period - they continually go along with the DEM's lying premise that the economy is terrible - (but we are "making it through" )

The fact that we are in a life and death struggle in NH,OH,FL,WV,NV and VA is not good - Period.

The game is getting late - We can no longer hold our powder -

30 posted on 08/16/2004 7:16:07 AM PDT by POA2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
With all his demonstrated weaknesses, Kerry shouldn't even be in contention but he is. And that has nothing to do with his strengths as a candidate as in how rabid the Democrats hate Bush enough to drive him out of office.

Kerry himself is somewhat irrelevant in the minds of the sheeple. They don't really like him all that much, but it doesn't matter. This election will be a referendum on George Bush, and whether or not people want him to remain in office. Kerry just happens to be the Rat placeholder, and will inherit the Presidency should voters decide that they don't want Bush in there any longer.

The memory of 9/11 is long gone from most voters' minds, and it's too late for the economy to recover to the point of it being better than it was when Bush came into office, at least on the employment front. The Rats are still going to be able to beat up Bush and the Republicans with the "net loss of jobs" hammer right up to election day. So that leaves Iraq and the WOT. Iraq is probably going to be the salient issue in the minds of voters, and how they feel about it come Election Day. Since the majority of voters still get their news from TV and/or the papers, I have a feeling that even if a stable democracy is established in Iraq tomorrow and we withdraw our forces, the media will find a way to blame Bush and spin it negatively.

Just being a worry wort doom-and-gloomer, I'm sure many will say. I'd love to have events prove me wrong, but after the way things went in '92, '96, and '00, I have my doubts.

31 posted on 08/16/2004 7:17:48 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon

ping


32 posted on 08/16/2004 7:20:17 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer (the real enemy seeks to devour what is good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon

Thanks for the info but anyone who claims to know who is going to win this election is smoking something. It is largely out of either's control to effect the outcome. If WMD or bin Laden is found Bush wins. If Iraq deteriorates and the economy stalls, Kerry wins.


33 posted on 08/16/2004 7:21:25 AM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
That's absolutely ridiculous. And you act as if this race is Kerry's to lose. Sheesh! Take a long hard look at this projection, which I think is pretty accurate. Kerry has a realistic shot at removing OH and FL from the President's column. That's about it. Maybe NV, CO or NC, but that's really stretching it. Now look at the states the President has a realistic shot at removing from the Kerry column: NM, NH, IA, MN, WI, WA, OR, PA, MI, and maybe even split ME. Yet I'm supposed to be worried about the President's position? Oh brother.

First I said in my first post this is GWB election to lose -

Secondly Your notion of which GORE 2000 States are moving away from Kerry is just pie in the sky -

WA,OR,PA are all soundly Kerry at this point - MI is a lean Kerry easily (I live here in MI) -IA,WI and MN are all States we are trying to pick-up but as of now only WI has shown GWB being able to have a lead -

NH,ME and NM are all looking Kerry as well -(go to Dales site) -

For example you list PA - Yet in 11 of the past 13 polls Kerry has been leading - in 7 of those polls Kerry has been up by 5pts our more (outside the MOE) -

Lastly if GWB losing FL he is toast - Period - But I don't see FL going Kerry because of the economy down there - it is soaring - (NC is a safe GWB State as well) -

Lastly the GWB camp did nothing from OCT 2003 until April of 2004 - This has hurt him big time - it allowed false premise after false premise to take hold!!

We are actually 80 days out from an election and WE are the one's trying to sell the voters that the economy is strong....(an economy that has grown EVERY QTR since the 3rd Qtr of 2001.....an economy that has not seen growth rates like we are in the past 20 years) - YET the premise is set that the economy is bad.......

34 posted on 08/16/2004 7:23:29 AM PDT by POA2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: POA2
Secondly Your notion of which GORE 2000 States are moving away from Kerry is just pie in the sky -

No, it is not. You may not be aware, but I actually pay attention to this sort of stuff. To more than just what current polling numbers are reflecting. And since all the states I've mentioned on that side of the ledger are essentially universally considered "swing" or "battleground" states, well...

Lastly the GWB camp did nothing from OCT 2003 until April of 2004

Then kindly explain to me how the campaign has raised $200+ million.

35 posted on 08/16/2004 7:31:45 AM PDT by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: POA2
The fact that we are in a life and death struggle in NH,OH,FL,WV,NV and VA is not good - Period.

Virginia?!? ROTFLMAO!!!!

36 posted on 08/16/2004 7:33:15 AM PDT by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LS
Explain the Arnold polls. Explain the failure to predict the outcome in Missouri, or the GOP turnout in CA, which was significant.

None of these were general elections, so normal turnout models didn't apply. Most pollsters concede that polling primaries and special elections are more difficult to model than general elections because it's not that easy to figure out who exactly is going to show up and vote in them.

37 posted on 08/16/2004 7:35:25 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BlackRazor
Fine: so explain how EVERY pollster was off---in the SAME DIRECTION (i.e., in the Democrat's favor) in 1996; how every one missed the GENERAL election results of 2002 (except, I think, Rasmussen, who had BADLY missed the 2000 election); and how most of them were substantially off in the presidential election of 2000.

It's not good enough to excuse these massive screwups by, "well, they're the professionals, and you're not." The fact is, they aren't doing a good job of predicting actual voting behavior, no matter WHICH election they try to predict.

38 posted on 08/16/2004 7:41:18 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Date Prob. Bush Win Mean EVs Std. Dev.
01/21 96.8% 341.5 41.1
01/26 95.5% 334.8 40.6
02/02 92.2% 323.8 39.7
02/09 83.0% 307.8 40.3
02/16 78.4% 300.4 39.4
02/23 76.2% 298.2 39.6
03/01 74.5% 295.9 39.3
03/08 68.0% 289.2 39.8
03/15 68.0% 288.8 39.0
03/22 68.5% 289.3 38.8
03/29 69.4% 290.1 38.8
04/05 71.2% 292.3 39.1
04/12 70.4% 290.6 38.1
04/19 68.6% 288.1 36.7
04/26 64.9% 284.5 36.3
05/03 66.3% 285.7 36.3
05/10 65.6% 285.3 36.8
05/17 65.2% 284.8 36.6
05/24 60.0% 280.3 36.9
05/31 61.1% 281.2 36.8
06/07 60.5% 280.6 36.5
06/14 65.0% 285.0 36.6
06/21 63.9% 284.0 36.8
06/28 58.4% 278.8 36.7
07/05 58.7% 279.1 36.7
07/12 53.1% 274.2 36.5
07/19 48.2% 269.8 35.7
07/26 43.4% 265.6 35.0
08/02 42.1% 264.3 34.7
08/09 42.9% 265.2 34.5
08/16 42.6% 264.9 34.2

39 posted on 08/16/2004 7:51:55 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege

Thanks jdege!


40 posted on 08/16/2004 7:53:16 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon (Goals for 2004: Re-elect President Bush, over 60 Republicans in the Senate, and a Republican House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson