[Josh in PA]

I've molded the current formula up against the last two elections. The only difference from the actual 2000 results, is New Mexico and Wisconsin.. This current formula had Bush narrowly (by less than 1 percent) winning both of those two states (where he narrowly lost them).

I also had him with slightly bigger leads in a few other states (Florida being one).

Nader's support collapsing on election day may have caused it, but there was also a slight underperformance of the GOP turnout.

All indications are there that GOP Turnout is going to be stronger this year.

[processing please hold]

In 2000, I had my hand on the lever for Nader for about 2 minutes. At the last second I couldn't do it...I voted Gore.

I believe a lot of people will be doing the same thing to Kerry. At the last second, vote for Bush instead.

[chesty_puller]

I've molded the current formula up against the last two elections.

There's no way to program the DUI revelation in there. Your numbers might have been dead on.

[commish]

The only difference from the actual 2000 results, is New Mexico and Wisconsin.

So, basically your model was dead on in 2000. N. Mex was actually closer than Florida, and it can be argued that turnout was depressed by the early erroneous call for Gore. Also, NM was probably overturnable had Bush pushed a recount because of the tainted ballots that were allowed.

Wisconsin was only a Gore state because of the documented fraud in Milwaukee.

You have me sold :-)

[rightinthemiddle]

Thanks for the work and posting.

This seems logical and possible. Too gad you can't factor in last minute media distortion.