Electoral Vote Projections

[Kepler]

There is a possibility that the DNC could take back control of the house. I am not sure if the new house would vote on this or the old house.
Article II says "the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President". If I'm reading that right, that means the old House votes. But even if it doesn't:

"But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote."

Since the states vote by delegation, there is no way for the Dems to win an election thrown to the House. I think the GOP leads in delegations by something like 2:1.

[alnorman]

FYI, the electoral votes aren't officially counted until January, after the new Congress is seated. Therefore, it would be the new House that votes.

Interesting side note. Had Florida gone to Gore but Pennsylvania to Bush in 2000, you would have had a 269-269 tie. Had every Senator voted along party lines, Joe Lieberman would have been named the veep...due to a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore.

[Goon]

There is a possibility that the DNC could take back control of the house. I am not sure if the new house would vote on this or the old house. That's the only thing i can think of

By the way, you can put Florida into the Bush column

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=186251

:D

The last time Gore endorsed or spoke for a candidate that person sank in the polls, I am sure the Kerry team will have the Goron on a short leash, so he doesn't do something stupid (We can only hope). In Iowa Gore endorse Dean and he dropped like a prom dress at a post prom party.

[Red Cloud]

Today's new ****.

COLORADO
KUSA-TV: 52-45 Bush
Also, though I don't have the poll numbers, my source tells me that the ballot initiative now appears heading for "certain defeat." I'll try and get those numbers.

FLORIDA
Quinnipiac: 45-43 Bush

IOWA
WHO-TV: 51-45 Bush

MICHIGAN
WDIV-TV: 51-44 Kerry
Yesterday I saw what I believe was an Opinion Dynamics poll which showed Bush up by 1 point in Michigan. I laughed.

NORTH CAROLINA
Mason-Dixon: 51-43 Bush

WISCONSIN
University of Minnesota: 48-47 Bush
Nader with 2 - could be a factor.

[busterman62]

By the way, you can put Florida into the Bush column



Florida's New Electronic Voting System (http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/oa/*http://uk.download.yahoo.com/ne/fu/attachments/votingmachine.wmv)

[Kepler]

The polls actually seem to be *diverging* from one another as we get close to the election. This could be because... well, really, I have no good theory. I assume it stems from difference in the methodologies used to define "likeliness" of voting.

In the most recent, AP/IPSOS poll, Kerry is ahead by 3%. But this follows a Wash Post poll of yesterday which had Bush by 6%:

http://www.pollingreport2.com/#bars

[Kepler]

OK, well I have been chastened by the following article: http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

This seems correct both from observation and from statistical training, so instead let's look at the polls from the POV of what % is for the incumbent:

http://www.pollingreport2.com/#bars

Following the Olympic rule of dropping the highest and the lowest, we get Bush with:

51, 51, 51, 50, 49, 49, 48, 48, 48, 48, 47, 47, 47, 46.

Looked at that way, there are two observations:

1) The polls really aren't moving around wildly at all. That's a tight grouping.
2) Bush is slightly below 50%. Of course, this is not a 2-man race, and 49.5% is probably enough to win, making this look like a complete toss-up.

Now let's look at where the action is:

Recent polls in OH (likely only): Bush 47, 48, 47, 49, 47, 47, 47
http://www.tripias.com/state/state.html?state=OH

Recent polls in FL (likely only): Bush 48, 49, 49, 48, 49, 49, 49
http://www.tripias.com/state/state.html?state=FL

Bush is in more trouble in those states than he is in the overall popular vote, not receiving 50%+ in *any* poll, though it may of course happen that Nader draws a greater percentage from Kerry in those states than he does in the country as a whole.

Finally, here's a nice summary from RCP: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
If those numbers persist and the Incumbent Rule is true, the election day breakdown of battleground states would be:

Bush: IA, MO, NV, CO, WV
Kerry: OH, PA, MI, NH, ME, OR, NJ, WA
Toss-up: FL, WI, NM

[trucker]

Now let's look at where the action is:

Recent polls in OH (likely only): Bush 47, 48, 47, 49, 47, 47, 47
http://www.tripias.com/state/state.html?state=OH

Recent polls in FL (likely only): Bush 48, 49, 49, 48, 49, 49, 49
http://www.tripias.com/state/state.html?state=FL

Bush is in more trouble in those states than he is in the overall popular vote, not receiving 50%+ in *any* poll, though it may of course happen that Nader draws a greater percentage from Kerry in those states than he does in the country as a whole.

Finally, here's a nice summary from RCP: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html
If those numbers persist and the Incumbent Rule is true, the election day breakdown of battleground states would be:

Bush: IA, MO, NV, CO, WV
Kerry: OH, PA, MI, NH, ME, OR, NJ, WA
Toss-up: FL, WI, NM

I didn't think that Nader was on the ballot in Ohio or PA. It seems like whoever gets 2 out of the 3 states of Ohio, Florida and PA will win the election so I hope you predictions hold up.

[Kepler]

I didn't think that Nader was on the ballot in Ohio or PA. It seems like whoever gets 2 out of the 3 states of Ohio, Florida and PA will win the election so I hope you predictions hold up.
RCP makes the following statements: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_EC.html

Bush has to win both FL and OH to win. Kerry simply has to win either FL or OH. If Kerry does not win either FL or OH, he has very little chance of becoming President.

Without one of these two states Kerry can get to 268/269 by winning NH and NV, but to get over 270 he will have to carry either WV or MO. It is hard to imagine Kerry losing OH, but winning MO or WV.

Bush needs to win both FL-27 and OH-20, but if he were to lose one of the two he has a small chance of picking up the lost EV's by winning some combination of either WI-10, NM-5, MN-10, IA-7 and OR-7 (and also denying Kerry pickups in NV and NH). Unlike Kerry's second-chance scenario, Bush could conceivably lose OH and still hold on to the Presidency by flipping WI and NM and holding on to NV

.If Kerry loses PA or MI he loses.

If Bush loses any one of AZ, CO, TN or AR he loses.

[Mark Laliberte]

Do you think it's safe to say that - between claims of voter fraud, legal issues up the yazoo and sundry attacks from both sides - we'll not know the winner of the 2004 presidential election until much later than Nov. 2? :mad:

[Robskillz]

Do you think it's safe to say that - between claims of voter fraud, legal issues up the yazoo and sundry attacks from both sides - we'll not know the winner of the 2004 presidential election until much later than Nov. 2? :mad:

That might be a good bet.

[trucker]

Do you think it's safe to say that - between claims of voter fraud, legal issues up the yazoo and sundry attacks from both sides - we'll not know the winner of the 2004 presidential election until much later than Nov. 2? :mad:

I think there is a very good chance of that happening and if it does, it will be much more divisive than 2000, IMO.

[Mark Laliberte]

On a lighter note...
...credit to Kepler for introducing me to www.realclearpolitics.com. This is like crack! :eek: It's what political/current affairs sites should look like! (Drudge?)

[Bruce Ciskie]

Do you think it's safe to say that - between claims of voter fraud, legal issues up the yazoo and sundry attacks from both sides - we'll not know the winner of the 2004 presidential election until much later than Nov. 2? :mad:

Anyone who bets against this happening is an idiot.

[Alton]

Article II says "the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President". If I'm reading that right, that means the old House votes.

It will be the new house, which takes its seats (according to the constitution) on January 3. Electoral votes are counted (according to law) on January 6.

See 3 U.S.C. 15, and other constitutional provisions and laws, here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/provisions.html

Interesting fact: Congress may pass a law to change the date of counting, which could presumably permit the old congress to "chuse" the new president.

I have not seen this discussed--sorry if I missed it--but it seems that Colorado has a referendum on the ballot that, if passed, would allocate its electoral votes proportionally according to popular vote, starting with the 2004 election.

There are doubts about the constitutionality of it coming into effect with the current election, but if it is passed, it could turn Colorado from 9 votes for Bush to 5 votes for Bush and 4 votes for Kerry.

There is a good discussion of this (and other possible "nightmare scenarios") here:
http://slate.com/id/2108339

[LynahFan]

OK, well I have been chastened by the following article: http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm

In 80% of the cases that they studied, a majority of the undecideds went for the challenger.

THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THAT IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES, 80% OF THE UNDECIDEDS VOTE FOR THE CHALLENGER!

Yet, they fall right into this trap:

Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look – 50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day.

They assigned the undecideds on an 80/20 ratio, when a 51/49 ratio would still be a majority for the challenger.

I have no alternate data to challenge their conclusion (undecideds tend to break toward the challenger), but their application of that finding is atrocious.

[Kepler]

Yet, they fall right into this trap.

Perhaps they did; it's unclear. The statement they made is that "50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day," which looks similar to the pie chart split. It isn't, however, an actual application of the pie chart split, which would have been 50 + (12 + 6/3)/10 = 51.5% and 40 + (82 + 6/2)/10 = 48.5%. To avoid a rounding result <> 100%, they would have included the .5's if they were making a direct causal statement.

I think it is more likely that they were using an illustrative example and it just happened to be kind of close to the pie chart. It was, however, very easy to draw the erroneous conclusion from their presentation, that is true.

[Mark Laliberte]

Not that I have any delusions that Hawaii will be checking into the "red" column anytime soon, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.

Hawaii is in play (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041022/ap_on_el_pr/hawaii_stakes)

[Red Cloud]

Not that I have any delusions that Hawaii will be checking into the "red" column anytime soon, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.

Hawaii is in play (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041022/ap_on_el_pr/hawaii_stakes)
Was just about to comment on this. Heard on Rush today that the local Dems did a poll to find out how well their statewide candidates were doing and ended up finding out that the Presidential race is closer than they thought.

Rush commented that this would be as bad as MA being close in terms of how liberal the state is and how expected it is for Kerry but I doubt it.

[Jason A]

Not that I have any delusions that Hawaii will be checking into the "red" column anytime soon, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.

Hawaii is in play (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041022/ap_on_el_pr/hawaii_stakes)Thanks for the story, Mark -- interesting stuff. Wouldn't it be funny if Hawaii voted for Bush and Alaska gave us a Democratic senator? :)

A couple of polls out of Ohio show a possible Kerry surge there.

Released yesterday, Gallup has Kerry up six among RVs: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-10-21-ohio-poll.htm

Released today, Ohio University has Kerry up six among RVs: http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/politics/story/1759396p-9600965c.html

MOEs are five and four, respectively.

Note that both polls have a much tighter race among LVs; Gallup has it a one-point race and Ohio Univ. has it a four-point race. Being familiar with how these polling companies determine likely voters, I have decided that those criteria simply don't apply to this year's race like they have in the past, so I've been looking at RV totals. I could be way, way off base on this, but it's how I feel right now.