Posted on 09/26/2004 7:19:48 PM PDT by Dales
Too many states have been updated since the last ECB article, due to a confluence of my work requirements, the flood, and polling companies putting out updates left and right. Every single state has been updated since I last wrote, so you should visit my site and examine each state to see the newest polls. As of right now, the President leads in the electoral vote count according to the ECb 246-181; with tossups factored in it balloons to 291-238. By comparison, when we go just by the polls it becomes 253-175 (292-221 with tossups), or 253-265 if Zogby's internet-based polls are not considered. The President has a 2.7% lead in the popular vote according to my calculated national result.
| Effective National Popular Results: Bush 47.7, Kerry 45.0%% |
|---|
|
|
| Kerry | Bush | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safe | Strong | Lean | Slight | Tossup | Slight | Lean | Strong | Safe | |
| DC (3) K78-B11 9/13/04 |
CT (7) K45-B38* 8/17/04 |
DE (3) K50-B41 9/15/04 |
MN (10) K49-B45*R B46-K44 B45-K45 9/14/04 |
NM (5) K49-B44 9/16/04 |
AR (6) B48-K45 9/17/04 |
NC (15) B49-K44 9/16/04 |
LA (9) B53-K36 9/2/04 |
ND (3) B62-K33 9/10/04 |
|
| MA (12) K64-B27 9/13/04 |
VT (3) K50-B40 9/12/04 |
MD (10) K48-B48 9/19/04 |
NJ (15) B48-K48 9/19/04 |
NH (4) B47-K45 9/17/04 |
WV (5) B51-K45 9/20/04 |
MO (11) B50-K44 9/19/04 |
SD (3) B58-K39 9/12/04 |
ID (4) B59-K30 9/10/04 |
|
| RI (4) K55-B37 9/20/04 |
HI (4) K51-B41 9/11/04* |
MI (17) K46-B44 B52-K42 9/22/04 |
OR (7) K51-B43 B48-K47 9/21/04 |
- | FL (27) B49-K46 9/22/04 |
WI (10) B52-K38* 9/21/04 |
KY (8) B53-K38 9/15/04 |
WY (3) B65-K29 9/11/04 |
|
| - | IL (21) K54-B39 K49-B43 9/16/04 |
WA (11) K47-B45*R 9/22/04 |
PA (21) K49-B46 9/22/04 |
- | IA (7) B48-K45 B50-K46 9/22/04 |
NV (5) B52-K43 B47-K45 9/21/04 |
AL (9) B54-K40 9/16/04 |
AK (3) B57-K30 9/11/04 |
|
| - | CA (55) K48-B43*R 9/22/04 |
- | ME (4) K45-B42 9/23/04 |
- | - | TN (11) B55-K41 9/22/04 |
MS (6) B51-K42 9/17/04 |
NE (5) B61-K30 9/12/04 |
|
| - | NY (31) K51-B31 9/23/04 |
- | - | - | - | OH (20) B48-K44 9/22/04 |
SC (8) B58-K38 9/21/04 |
UT (5) B64-K27 9/13/04 |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | VA (13) B53-K42 9/23/04 |
AZ (10) B54-K43 9/23/04 |
GA (15) B58-K38R 9/15/04 |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | CO (9) B52-K44 9/23/04 |
- | KS (6) B57-K35 9/18/04 |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | IN (11) B54-K39 9/20/04 |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | TX (34) B58-K37 9/21/04 |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | OK (7) B64-K33 9/22/04 |
|
| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | MT (3) B54-K36 9/22/04 |
|
| Totals |
|
||||||||
| Kerry States | Battleground States | Bush States | |||||||
| 19 | 121 | 41 | 57 | 9 | 45 | 104 | 43 | 99 | |
| 181 | 111 | 246 | |||||||
* Indicates a Registered Voter poll as opposed to a Likely Voter poll.
*R Indicates a partisan Republican poll. *D Inidcates a partisan Democrat poll.
** Indicates a poll of either adults or residents.
Could you please add me to your ping list? Also, in your MI box you have the numbers switched on one poll; it should be K53-B42. Not trying to nitpick, but just so no one gets confused.
I should have noted in this article, that the ECB done right after the first debate in 2000 (which would also be before any state polls done after any of the debates had occurred) showed Bush ahead 223-211, and ahead by 1% in the popular vote; those results, I believe, fit in well with the thesis of this article. Where we are at today is very likely where the election will end up.
Agreed.
Oh, THANK you! I felt like I was starving for your analysis... every time new poll numbers came out, all I could think was, "Yeah, but what would Dales say about it???" :-)
BTW, did you see that you have a spectacular Weblog ranking?
36) Daly Thoughts & Dales' Electoral College Breakdown 2004 12673 visits/day (3127)
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/TrafficRanking.php
I saw (well, I see, I track it every day). 36 is actually bad. Most days in the past two weeks I have been about 31-32.
IAWI. That's the key. Iowa and Wisconsin flipping their 17 Electoral Gore votes to Bush. Everything else stays the same as 2000. That's how I see it.
Oh Well...as long as they were gentle. Did I mention how much I appreciate your work on these threads? Thanks!
I'd say 36 is still spectacular given the thousands of weblogs out there :-)
Your traffic probably only went down briefly because of the Rathergate episode, too... folks have been concentrating on Powerline and LGF lately. I'm sure your traffic level will skyrocket as we get closer to November 2cnd... as well as your email level from panicking fans pestering you for your next updates ;-)
The one who is really going to pay for this failure is not W, who will probably win anyway, but rather the nominee in 2008.
Superb work as usual. Until tonight, I never know that there was little or no historical evidence to support the urban myth that debates materially affect Presidential campaigns -- with the 1980 exception, of course. Actually, my belief is that debates tend to consolidate support for each candidate, and change very few minds.
GOP "leaders" would rather lose than be called "racists."
When it comes to voter fraud, that's really what our problem is.
One thing we can do on the ground, however, is tell our volunteers about how much fraud we suspect there is -- that the only way they can do something about it is to make up for it by working hard on the campaign.
Am I on your ping list? If not please add me.
Great work!
This is strictly anecdotal evidence, but my family and I just spent five days in southern WI - Milwaukee area, Madison, Kenosha, Racine... We kept a running total of Bush/Cheney vs. Kerry/Edwards yard signs and bumper stickers (not counting the one on our rental car). :-)
Final totals:
Bumper stickers: Bush/Cheney - 43, Kerry-Edwards - 19
Yard signs: Bush/Cheney - 102, Kerry-Edwards - 45
The area of WI that we spent our time in was not IMHO the most conservative part of the state. I'd say President Bush is well positioned to take back this Gore state.
And if this perceived level of excitement, via stickers/signs, for both tickets accurately reflects WI voter sentiment, Mr. Feingold may well find himself unemployed.
Overlay the maps from about four years ago with this one.
:^{)
Not a bad idea, actually.
Excellent.
My point is, look how much the map changed in '00 in the last six weeks. And it even tilted much more strongly to Bush temporarily back then before he finally eked it out. Bush looked good, then he looked a lock, then he took it by less than hair.
There's room for a TON of wobble in the current map.
No argument from me.
I voted you "number 1 with a bullet" (if you know what that old urban-machine-election saying means) in the Washington Post poll.
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.
I Wouldn't Touch It With a 10 Foot Poll
Debating The Impact
The fable of the first Presidential debate is well known. Richard Nixon was known as highly intelligent, determined, and both experienced and skilled in the art of debate. His opponent, the young and dynamic John F. Kennedy, understood the medium better. Nixon showed up weary, and foolishly did not use makeup. Kennedy was tanned and rested, and had his presentation professionally attended. The cameras made Kennedy look even better, while the sweating and pale Nixon came across sickly and nervous.
According to the fable, those who heard the debate on radio declared that Nixon had gotten the upper hand. Those who watched on television, however, came away with a completely different impression. And as Erika Tyner Allen writes, "At election time, more than half of all voters reported that the Great Debates had influenced their opinion; 6% reported that their vote was the result of the debates alone." Given this, it would be easy for one to conclude that the first set of Presidential debates greatly impacted the 1960 election.
But while people probably, for the most part, do answer poll questions truthfully to the best of their perceptions, people also do sometimes remember things wrong, or otherwise end up answering in misleading manners. The entire race for President in 1960 had been fought tooth and nail. First one candidate, and then the other, opened up a 4-5 point lead with their convention. Heading into the debates, the race as measured by Gallup was a tie. Three straight polls, taken from early August through the middle of September showed the race either exactly even or within a single point. The actual results on election day were just as close; Kennedy took home 0.17% more of the popular vote. If 6% decided their vote on the debates alone, they must have done so half for each candidate; and if more than half of all voters had ther decision greatly influenced by the debates, they must also have come down on both sides in nearly even proportions.
The fable says the debates won the race for Kennedy. The polls showed him opening up a slight lead after the debates, but that the change did not hold. Further, the change in the poll numbers was small enough (and the number of polls taken and released so small) that it could very well have been nothing more than random sampling variance. It is an unpopular perspective, but despite the fact that people said the debates influenced their votes in 1960 greatly, the Gallup poll gives little credence to the idea that they actually did.
There is a conventional wisdom storyline for the next election that involved a Presidential debate. The year this time was 1976, and President Gerald Ford was in a world of trouble. Much of the nation was angry at his party over the Watergate scandal. Further, Mr. Ford had exascerbated the matter by pardoning President Richard Nixon. He had managed, despite being perhaps the most accomplished athlete to ever hold our nation's highest office, to be considered to be a bumbling klutz. His opponent was a charismatic southerner with populist roots, being a peanut farmer, and a smile so big that charicatures could not do it justice. It got so bad that after the Democratic convention, Ford trailed in the Gallup poll by the incomprehensible margin of 62%-29%. But deftly using the powers of the incumbency and having a successful convention of his own, he clawed back into the race and headed into the debates trailing Mr. Carter by just two points in the Gallup poll taken just before their single debate. In the debate, however, Mr. Ford made a gaffe that cost him dearly, wherein he claimed that Poland and eastern Europe were not under Soviet domination. His campaign never recovered, and he went on to defeat.
While the Gallup polls taken after the debate did show Carter increasing the lead from two points to six points following the debates, the fact is that once again the movement was slight enough that it is very possible that there was no actual movement and that instead there was the normal fluctuations that occur due to the margin of error. Going into the debates, Mr. Carter led Mr. Ford by 2%. On election day, Mr. Carter won the election by 2% of the popular vote.
October 28th, 1980, was the day that President Carter's hopes for re-election died, according to the script. Ronald Reagan came across as competent, confident, and folksy. Carter came across as convoluted, with his daugher Amy being a key advisor on nuclear proliferation. The race, which had been close, suddenly opened up into a rout.
In this instance, the poll numbers do show a similar story, although there is a bit of information to be gleaned. The race had been tied through August, but then Mr. Carter had moved ahead, by eight points in the Gallup survey conducted prior to the debate. The poll taken afterwards, just before the election, showed that Mr. Reagan had taken a 3 point lead, 47-44. The actual tally on election day was Reagan 51, Carter 41.
The storyline in 1984 was of two debates. During the first, challenger Walter Mondale ate President Reagan's lunch, with the aging President coming across as slow witted and, perhaps, too old. In the second debate, Mr. Reagan turned the tide with a single quip, about how he would not use his opponent's "youth and inexperience against him." The election was a landslide, and close to an electoral sweep. The polls did not show the drama that the storyline indicates, however. Before the debates, Reagan led 58-38. In the Gallup poll taken in between the two debates, his support level had dropped all of two points. He won, 59-41.
Perhaps it is because they happen only every four years, with so much time afterwards for post mortems to be written, that the debates have spawned such enduring storylines. In 1998, it was the embattled encumbent who benefitted from his opponent revealing to the world, in an emotionless answer to a hypothetical question about the rape of his wife, that he may be too robotic for the job. People could never warm to a man who could not warm up his fire against the thought of his wife being raped. Dukakis faded, to where he is not even mentioned in the Presidential campaign of his Lt. Governor.
Here is what the polls showed. Coming out of the Republican convention, then Vice-President Bush had forged ahead, pulling in between 48% and 49% in two iterations of the Gallup poll. His lead varied between 4 and 8 points, which is well within the variance one might anticipate from the margin of error. By the time the debates were over, he had greatly improved his standing, with the last pre-election poll giving him 56% of the vote. On election day he took home 53% to Dukakis' 46%. That seven point margin is suspiciously similar to the 4-8 point lead he had going into the debates.
In 1992, heading into the debates Bill Clinton led President Bush 47%-34%. A glance at the watch cost President Bush so dearly that on election day the results were 43%-37%. In 1996, President Clinton showed himself to be far above Senator Dole in the art of Presidential debates; but the race had been about a 9 point race beforehand and on election day it ended up being a nine point race. In 2000, conventional wisdom suggests that Vice President Gore lost badly to now-President George Bush. For more than a week heading into the debates, Gallup's tracking poll had shown the race either tied or oscillating around a tie. The election ended up, essentially, a tie.
In each of these elections, there has been a clear winner in the debates. Yet in every case except 1980, the debates did not change the race. Where things were heading into the debates was where things ended up. In an earlier article, I mentioned how in Presidential races, the undecideds tend to break for the party in power, with the only meaningful exception being with Ronald Reagan in 1980, where not only the undecideds broke his way but also a good portion of the previously decideds. If the past is prologue, then unless Senator Kerry or President Bush manage to pull off a Reaganesque performance, then on election day the race is going to be where it is today.