« General Election Cattle Call, July 25 | Main | Open Thread »
Monday, July 26, 2004
Another Batch of Polls
Posted by DavidNYCI've been quite busy the past few days. Many law schools have a wonderful process called "Early Interview Week," a hellish few days during which you interview with about 8,000 different law firms to get a job for summer 2005, and for many people, the rest of their lives. (Firms wind up giving almost every summer associate a full-time offer for after graduation.) It sucks to have to think about next summer while this one is still just in July, but there it is.
Anyhow, every students who participates in EIW bids on the firms they want to interview with. (Each firm only has so many interview slots available.) So my bid list is due in a couple of days, and assembling it has been occupying a lot of my time. Sussing out the differences between Dewey, Cheatem & Howe versus Oliver & Dunne is a little bit like trying to distinguish between Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld... and right here, in case any potential employers are reading, I'm gonna quit with the analogy. But if you have any thoughts about any of the big New York firms, let me know.
Oh, yes, there was an actual point to this thread. Kos has another battleground poll roundup. There may be some repeats, but it does include the new SUSA Nevada poll (PDF) which was mentioned in comments here that I hadn't yet posted:
Kerry: 49
Bush: 45
Other: 4
Undecided: 3
(MoE: ��3.5%)
SUSA's low undecideds have always made me a bit uncomfortable, yet despite their all-automated surveying, they apparently have a pretty good track record. All things being equal, Bush can afford to lose NV - in a way, it's sort of a neither-here-nor-there state. That is to say, if we take Nevada, it means we've held NM, but I don't think it says anything about AZ. In other words, NV is part of a very small group of states which could change hands without a single other state changing hands.
Posted at 02:42 AM in Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio | Technorati
Comments
I remember those days, but consider yourself lucky - those of us two years ahead of you are within days (one day here in CA) of taking the State Bar Exam. Which I can't believe they scheduled during the Democratic National Convention...
NV is easy for Kerry to win because of changing demographics and being on the right side of the Yucca Mountain issue. As for it not mattering that much, if Gore had won it in 2000 he wouldn't have needed Florida. Of course, you could say that about a lot of places, I guess.
Posted by: hastings14 at July 26, 2004 01:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My sister went through that a few years ago. She landed at Cleary Gottleib and has been pretty happy there.
Posted by: fiat lux at July 26, 2004 02:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The labor vote in NV split in 2000 between Gore and Bush. Not very likely this time. I think labor will support Kerry pretty overwhelmingly. Kerry might just take NV.
Posted by: Rock_nj at July 26, 2004 02:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
First, I think Rock is right - NV might go Kerry, but it'll be close. NV is getting a lot bluer (and bigger) as time goes by, but 2004 might be a bit too soon.
And yeah, I certainly wouldn't mind winding up at Cleary. Nice place.
Posted by: DavidNYC at July 26, 2004 03:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I apologize for threading here on an off topic subject, but I was wondering whether stem cell research is being discussed this week at the convention.
I know that Congressman Peter Deutsch introduced a bill into congress that would lift the ban on federal funding for this form of in vitro research that President (hopefully not for too long) Bush introduced three years ago. If anyone is interested, visit the website below to urge President Bush to allow scientists to do thier job.
http://www.peterforflorida.com/petition/stemcell.shtml
Posted by: stem cell at July 26, 2004 05:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ron Reagan, Jr. will be talking about stem cell research.
Posted by: DavidNYC at July 26, 2004 09:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
What a magnificent speech Bill Clinton gave tonight. It made me long for good leadership. It's just unthinkable to me that this country might put George Bush in office again. The contrast of leadership in the Democratic and Republican parties is stark. The Dems are dynamic, smart, and impressive. The Reps are stuck in a coldwar mentality and failed ideology. How much of a contrast between good and poor leadership do the American people need?
Posted by: Randy at July 27, 2004 01:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yes, Bill Clinton's speech was quite good and inspiring. Go Bill!
Posted by: Rock_nj at July 27, 2004 09:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
B.C. was good as always, but my favorite line was Mr. Carter's: "To lead, we need a leader who doesn't mislead." As for a top NYC firm, how about Chermayeff & Geismar?
Posted by: schaff at July 27, 2004 12:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
www.electoral-vote.com says that Minnesota is now tied.
What's wrong with Minnesota? That was the only State to vote for Mondale in 1984; Mondale won only that and DC. How can Bush and Kerry be tied there?
Posted by: Inkan1969 at July 27, 2004 02:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
By the way, yesterday Tammy Baldwin also spoke about stem cell reearch, proving this isn't just something the Reagan family is worried about. Also proving that CSPAN beats CNN every time.
Posted by: schaff at July 27, 2004 03:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Inkan1969:
My goodness, you do seem to delight in bringing bad news to our attention, don't you?
There's very little reason to think that Minnesota is tied. Electoral-vote.com lists it that way as a result of a single poll, done by Strategic Vision, which is a GOP polling operation. Other polls do not support this contention:
- Zogby 7/12 K49.3-B44.1-N2 moe4.1 (K+5.2in)
- HHHInst 7/12 K49.0-B45.8 or K46.5-B44.2-N4.6 moe4 (K+3.2in)
- MasonDixonStPaulPioneerPressMPR 7/14 K48-B45 or K45-B44-N2 moe4
- Zogby 7/23 K50.6-B44.2-N1.7 moe3.9 (K+6.4in)
- StrategicVisions(GOP) 7/24 K47-B47-N2 moe3
This is one of the drawbacks with assigning a state's electoral votes on the basis of the last poll out, especially when you accept partissan polls for that purpose.
Do note that even with this flawed methodology (well, not *flawed*, exactly, but less than perfect), Kerry wins 291 to 237.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 27, 2004 04:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The CONTRAST betwen GOOD and EVIL in these Conventions leaves no doubt. It's not that people don't see the CONTRAST. I have been studying "good" and "evil" in people as a hobby for a decade. A lot of people who "seem" good are not. And most go unnoticed because they have no power. A Saddam Hussein or a Bush could live next door to you, but you won't notice it until or unless they get some type of power.
I think this election is drawing VERY CLEAR lines between "good" and "evil". EVERYBODY SEES IT -the contrast. The evil will identify with evil and the good will identify with good.
I almost feel grateful because this election has given me very clear guiding lines, and I am now able to weed out "friends" who are not good. I'm "re-doing"y life with only the good. I've canned some friends, hired a new attorney.
Posted by: MsX at July 27, 2004 04:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
MsX:
Isn't it better to consider things in shades of gray and different patterns of values? To you or I it's scary that someone like Bush should have that much power - but do you really think that all his millions of supporters are evil?
Maybe they're misinformed and misguided, and perhaps misguidedly selfish, but Kerry isn't going to win them over by telling them they're evil! He needs to tell them how he is going to help them getter better lives.
Here's hoping he does ok at the convention...
Posted by: Dave at July 27, 2004 06:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Incidentally, following up on my comment about the Strategic Visions poll in Minnesota, I have some questions about them and their state polls which I raised here.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 27, 2004 07:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
To David,
I have a question.
What is your methodology in the GECC? I know some statistics (happens to be my current profession) so I would like to know more details.
It seems that you are consistently ~3 percent and ~50 electors more optimistic (Kerry-wise) than the average of published polls.
Are you sure that's a result of analysis and not wishful thinking? And have you tried factoring in Nader full-time, I mean, it doesn't seem like he's going away, right?
I sure pray that Bush gets fired Nov. 2nd, but I'd hate to be deluded.
Perhaps you should introduce an "over-optimism-fudge-factor" into your results, or a "best-case worst case", just to be on the safe side.
Thanks for the work you're doing, anyway!
Take care, Assaf
Posted by: Assaf Oron at July 27, 2004 07:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Questions linger in FLA and OH regarding whether or not African Americans will turn out. Indeed, turnout for all kinds of Americans is the most relevant question of all. I tend to think most voters are highly motivated, but it's very hard to predict.
Of course, USAToday's credibility, under special scrutiny this year because of the Bill Kelley debacle in the spring, didn't get enhanced by today's Ann Coulter episode:
Ann Coulter fired by USAToday after one column
Posted by: joseph at July 27, 2004 07:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Why is Tenessee not discussed more as a potential swing to the democrats?
Posted by: ANDY ROBINSON at July 30, 2004 04:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment