Electoral Vote Projections

[Kepler]

It doesn't look so bad to me. In spite of the first debate debacle Bush is still ahead. Kerry has leads of 1-3% in 8 states, including New Jersey, and Michigan is now tied. Bush's margin is <3% in only a single state. Most of the polls were done before the VP debate. As long as Kerry doesn't take the lead in Missouri (which is tight), I don't think he'll win.
I agree it isn't crippling for Bush, although it is a concern, given that the trending is now definitely established, and Bush's margin in his toss-up states derives from older polls (in many cases) which may have less relevance now.

It's still a LONG way to go until 11/2. However, I think at this point everybody has to admit that the first debate helped Kerry a great deal.

Tonight will be interesting.

[Kepler]

All of the others you posted earlier, still have Bush ahead, with the exception of this one, the "Democratic" one (ridiculously tilted!) and one that has them even.


....and, lastly, silly AP.
Tripias now also has Kerry leading, http://www.tripias.com/state/ unless that's the one you're counting as even (and I agree, 2 EVs with this much uncertainty is a tie by all rights).

Interesting article on one of the sites (I can't find it now) maintains that if the CO ballot initiative passes, then assuming Bush takes the majority in the state, it will cost him 4 EVs -- in an election this tight, that could easily flip the result, probably creating an unbelievably bitter and frightening (for democracy) court struggle.

I am desperately hoping the result does not wind up hinging on the CO initiative, since the resulting insanity will rip the country in half and probably finish off what little integrity the SCOTUS has left (whichever way it rules).

[Brett Gobe]

Can anyone get electoral vote to load? It was fine for me this morning (830)but it seems to have been farked.

[Kepler]

Can anyone get electoral vote to load? It was fine for me this morning (830)but it seems to have been farked.
It's fine for me.

[LynahFan]

Interesting article on one of the sites (I can't find it now) maintains that if the CO ballot initiative passes, then assuming Bush takes the majority in the state, it will cost him 4 EVs -- in an election this tight, that could easily flip the result, probably creating an unbelievably bitter and frightening (for democracy) court struggle.


Just curious what you find frightening about courts interpreting laws (in this case, election laws) and deciding how they should apply to situations that the laws' authors hadn't considered? I kind of thought that's what courts were for. Or are you concerned about "Pure Democracy," so that any court ruling of any kind on elections would be a bad thing, because it implies that the decision was not made by the entire populace?

I really don't find it frightening at all - quite interesting, but part of the normal process in our generally outstanding representative government's system of checks and balances.

[Kepler]

Just curious what you find frightening about courts interpreting laws (in this case, election laws) and deciding how they should apply to situations that the laws' authors hadn't considered? I kind of thought that's what courts were for. Or are you concerned about "Pure Democracy," so that any court ruling of any kind on elections would be a bad thing, because it implies that the decision was not made by the entire populace?

I really don't find it frightening at all - quite interesting, but part of the normal process in our generally outstanding representative government's system of checks and balances.
Uh huh, and on Theory World that would be a fascinating exercise in political science. Here on earth, having political results decided in court proceedings demythologizes the objectivity of the courts and degrades the only effective non-violent conflict-resolution mechanism mankind has ever come up with.

I have no desire to risk civil chaos to bask in the theoretical beauty of our Constitutional system, thanks.

[LynahFan]

Wow - that's some serious brinksmanship, Kepler. Courts have always been involved in the election process - everything from strking down unfair polling practices to setting district boundaries, etc. If this is the "civil chaos" of which you speak, I'll have another helping, please!

[Kepler]

Wow - that's some serious brinksmanship, Kepler. Courts have always been involved in the election process - everything from strking down unfair polling practices to setting district boundaries, etc. If this is the "civil chaos" of which you speak, I'll have another helping, please!
I assume you know exactly what I am saying and are stretching to make a rhetorical point. Obviously the intepretation of law is the governor on our political processes -- spare me the Poli Sci 101 platitudes. But that is very different that the court picking the winner of the presidential election in two straight terms.

If it must be, then it must be -- but I would prefer the margin to be large enough that the refinements properly introduced by the court decisions not flip the result.

[SurfCityRed]

I assume you know exactly what I am saying and are stretching to make a rhetorical point. Obviously the intepretation of law is the governor on our political processes -- spare me the Poli Sci 101 platitudes. But that is very different that the court picking the winner of the presidential election in two straight terms.

If it must be, then it must be -- but I would prefer the margin to be large enough that the refinements properly introduced by the court decisions not flip the result.

Oh Puhleeze! Just exactly how did the Supreme Court pick the winner of the 2000 Presidential election and FLIP the result? You are far too intelligent to actually believe this.

[Kepler]

Oh Puhleeze! Just exactly how did the Supreme Court pick the winner of the 2000 Presidential election and FLIP the result? You are far too intelligent to actually believe this.
"Puhleeeze" read what I wrote. I did not say the SCOTUS flipped the 2000 result, but by stopping the recount they did -- by definition -- determine the winner. Had they allowed the recount to continue, perhaps the result would have been different, perhaps not, but it would still have been indeterminate at the point of the court decision.

Court legitimacy rests on its perception as being above politics -- the classic line that the test of a good decision is that you cannot decide from the decision on the justice's partisanship. The 5-4 SCOTUS decision was exactly the opposite of this -- it was a partisan-pregnant decision on all sides, are extremely damaging to the court.

[K7776S2001]

Uh huh, and on Theory World that would be a fascinating exercise in political science. Here on earth, having political results decided in court proceedings demythologizes the objectivity of the courts and degrades the only effective non-violent conflict-resolution mechanism mankind has ever come up with.

I have no desire to risk civil chaos to bask in the theoretical beauty of our Constitutional system, thanks.



I pretty much agree with you. Thats why I think it was stupid when Gore and his wonderful advisors decided that was the way they wanted to go.

[SurfCityRed]

"Puhleeeze" read what I wrote. I did not say the SCOTUS flipped the 2000 result, but by stopping the recount they did -- by definition -- determine the winner. Had they allowed the recount to continue, perhaps the result would have been different, perhaps not, but it would still have been indeterminate at the point of the court decision.

Court legitimacy rests on its perception as being above politics -- the classic line that the test of a good decision is that you cannot decide from the decision on the justice's partisanship. The 5-4 SCOTUS decision was exactly the opposite of this -- it was a partisan-pregnant decision on all sides, are extremely damaging to the court.

No the Supreme Court did not determine the winner, the voters did. Two recounts had already been completed. If it weren't for a final court decision, Gore might still be asking for more recounts. Left wingers like to spout nonsense such as "selected not elected" and claim that Bush stole the election. The reality is that Gore tried to steal the election by attempting to apply an unprecedented standard for counting votes in four select counties that favored him, but ultimately failed.

[Todd]

No the Supreme Court did not determine the winner, the voters did. Two recounts had already been completed. If it weren't for a final court decision, Gore might still be asking for more recounts. Left wingers like to spout nonsense such as "selected not elected" and claim that Bush stole the election. The reality is that Gore tried to steal the election by attempting to apply an unprecedented standard for counting votes in four select counties that favored him, but ultimately failed.As we have been trying to keep this a thread dedicated to discussing the EV polls/projections, I won't answer you in full here - but if you think that two full recounts had been completed according to the election law of the State of Florida, you need to do more research.

[Kepler]

No the Supreme Court did not determine the winner, the voters did. Two recounts had already been completed. If it weren't for a final court decision, Gore might still be asking for more recounts. Left wingers like to spout nonsense such as "selected not elected" and claim that Bush stole the election. The reality is that Gore tried to steal the election by attempting to apply an unprecedented standard for counting votes in four select counties that favored him, but ultimately failed.
Oh, man. I suppose there are still a few hard core Kool Aid drinkers who believe that anybody who thinks the Court decision was a joke has these motives... sigh.

This is the reality. It was an incredibly flawed election -- there hasn't been a more obviously stolen election since Kennedy stole the '60 election.

It would have been much better if all the votes had been counted -- it would not necessarily have changed the result; the fix was already in. But even then, America might have saved face. Then, partisanship intervened in the ugly, makeup-caked, hate-pinched face of Katherine Harris, to derail any reasoned resolution of serious ethical challenges to the FL result (and lest you think I'm arguing from a desire to just see Gore relected, there were equally snarky ethical issues in MO and NM). The Court then had a chance to say that respecting votes -- actually believing in our democracy -- was more important than ramming through the result, and ZERO of the justices took that line -- the 5 Bushy judges decided they would ignore the entire issue and blithely appoint a president, while the 4 anti-Bush judges decided they would argue from a patently absurd position. Disgusting: 0 for 9. At that point we should have canned them all.

So, move on. It's 2004 and we have a chance to leave the worst election in our history behind. So I am hoping the result is clearcut. If and when Kerry wins, I hope it will be by 30+ EVs so nobody on the right can whine. If the country still hasn't mastered remedial math and economics and Bush wins, I hope he wins by a similar margin.

The difference is that at least one person on my side feels the good of the country through the legitimacy of the result is more important than the result. I have yet to hear a single Bush-supporter say they would rather lose with class than win at all costs. On your side, it's "just win, baby!" And that sucks, because 20 years ago the GOP had some honor. Maybe getting rid of the current insect infestation of the White House is the first step to recapturing the soul of the right.

[dropthatpuck]

Before we move on, I'll throw in my two pennies. Florida law was NOT followed in the various counties, and hadn't been apparently in some time. However, the election needed to be certified at some point, the Sec. of State's office gave them plenty of opportunity to "recount" as necessary.....add on top of that the county registrars attempt at trying to determine the "intent" of faceless voters using their own criteria was ridiculous....and it was being perpetuated by the left.

Now we can move on. :p

[Kepler]

Back to the polls, Cheney was a big winner from his debate with Edwards. Although the debate itself was a tie or a narrow win by one or the other depending on your views, Mr. Potter really pushes his positives: http://www.pollingreport.com/C.htm

His negatives remain the same...

Another big winner, by pretty much exactly the same margin, is Kerry: http://www.pollingreport.com/k.htm

Edwards helped himself, too: http://www.pollingreport.com/E-F.htm

And Bush? Well... not so much: http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm In fact, he went backwards. 'Spect he'll rebound with his coherent performance in the second debate, but what this means is Bush blew a big chance to improve his numbers, while the other 3/4 of the major tickets grabbed their chance.

[Kepler]

Kerry's rebound is now firmly entrenched in the EV sites.

Of the sites that have been updated since the debates began:

Race 2004: Kerry +47
Electoral Vote: Kerry +22
Poll Watcher: Kerry +22
Rasmussen: Bush +61

The other sites I have been monitoring --- Blogging Caesar*, Pres Elect, and Sabato, have not been updated since 10/4.

* BC has proved to be a disappointment. Despite being an outspoken mouthpiece for Bush, early on they were a solid, honest site with their numbers, but after meticulously doing updates every day through September, they suddenly stopped after the first prez debate, freezing the result at what now looks like an absurdly out-dated result. I am going to give the guy a chance, since as I said he seems to be above board. But the coincidence of Bush dropping off the shelf in the polls and he stopping updates is... well.. a little too convenient.

[bronconick]

BC usually updates once a week on Sundays. I'd expect it to be different sometime tonight or tomorrow.

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

472-7-3...Nader, Bush, Kerry, respectively

[bronconick]

BC usually updates once a week on Sundays. I'd expect it to be different sometime tonight or tomorrow.

In fact, it just got updated

Bush 274
Kerry 264