Swing State Project: General Election Cattle Call, July 22

« Open Thread | Main | General Election Cattle Call, July 23 »

Thursday, July 22, 2004

General Election Cattle Call, July 22

(Previous Numbers in Parenthesis)

National Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 53.27 (52.87)
Bush: 46.73 (47.13)
Status: Lean Kerry

Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 327, 232 solid
Bush: 211, 118 solid
States Changing Hands from 2000: FL, MO, NV, NH and OH
States Projected By Less Than Three Points: AR, CO, LA, NC, and TN for Bush (50); Mo and OH for Kerry (31)

Wow--look at Kerry's lead. Now that we are nearly on the eve of the Dem convention, Kerry has taken a 6.54 lead in the two-party vote, and he is less than three points from 377 electoral votes. His "safe" states almost double Bush right now. Right now, I project Georgia closer than Wisconsin.

I had always hoped that Kerry could take a seven point lead before the convention, and he just might be able to do it. If the convention is mostly about shoring up your base, then we might just enter a new era of stability in the campaign where Kerry stays about 50 in every poll for weeks, if not months, on end.

Posted at 01:51 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati

Comments

Kerry will be riding high. But politics is about momentum. Bush's last chance to regain some momentum is at the Republican Convention in early Sept. I doubt he can get anything going though. His negative ads have been falling flat. People seem to ready to try a new direction.

Posted by: Rock_nj at July 22, 2004 02:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

OBL is the only card left. Oh, forgot, Kerry fathered a black child while in VN.

Posted by: ben at July 22, 2004 04:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It's still kind of amazing to me that the race is this close...OBL is still at large, we bombed a country that had basically nothing to do with him back to the stone age, went from having the world's sympathy to having its contempt, took a nice budget surplus and converted it into a massive deficit, did little to nothing for the economy...and he's STILL neck and neck for re-election?? Boggles the mind.

The Dem convention will get a nice bounce that will fade. Then the Rep convention will do the same. The debates will happen, they'll be pronounced a "tie," after both candidates read their talking points for an hour, and we'll go into November with roughly the same numbers as now.

Posted by: Nim at July 22, 2004 11:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

You're giving the American people too much credit. Most don't realize these facts, or Bush would lose in a landslide. How can people support spending $130 Billion of their taxdollars in Iraq and Afghanstan, while our own country is falling apart? It's just plain ignorance.

OBL is probably the last card the Republicans have to play, and play it they will. Don't be at all surprised if OBL turns up in U.S. custody a week before the election to boost Bush, and it will work. Sure, us intellectuals will be outraged, but so what? The masses will react with favor and pull the lever for Bush.

Posted by: Rock_nj at July 23, 2004 08:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

honk, honk, honk...gas, gas, gas,...gas, brake, honk...

homer simpson - the episode where he is trying to reach 300lbs to get on disabilty.

Posted by: liberal_for_life at July 23, 2004 08:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I like this site a lot, but I have a fit nits to pick. First, in science there is something called "significant figures," which boils down to that you only present as many decimal points in your final results as the accuracy of the data allow. So, for intance, stating that Kerry's current percentage is "53.27" is going too far. The ".27" is essentially garbage that should be rounded down. All of these polls have a margin or error or between two and five percent, meaning that the closest you should present your data is with a number like "53." Even that number is unusual, however, since I have not seen Kerry that high in any poll yet. With Nader likely to draw 2% nationally, and with at least 5% undecided, a more accurate forcast might be that found in the LA Times poll of today: Kerry 46, Bush 44, Nader 2, Undecided 7. Nader could still be a factor in some close states, like FL, and I don't see why you factor him out. Finally, another small linguistic thing, why do you say "states changing hands" seemingly a bald and bold prediction, rather than "states potentially changing hands"?

Again, I like this site very much, and have learned a lot from it, but I think it could be improved a little bit.

Best, Ben

Posted by: Ben at July 23, 2004 11:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ben --

Here's an explanation for where the 53% figure comes from (and why it is higher than the polls you've seen.) At the top right hand corner of the front page is a link to the methodology used in the site.

One thing that the Cattle-Call does (and I also found it confusing at first), is reports percentages *exclusive of* undecided and third-party voters.

For example, if some state were polling 50% Kerry, 40% Bush, 10% undecided/other, then DavidNYC would determine that 90% of the population in the state has made up their mind for one of the two major candidates, and *of those 90%*, fifty ninetieths or 55.56% support Kerry, and forty ninetieths or 44.44% support Bush.

The intent of this is to make the percentage spread between the candidates more pronounced, and to offset the complication caused by the fact that some states have a greater percentage of undecided voters than others.

Here's an exaggerated scenario to illustrate my point. Imagine that in State A, 0% of the voters were undecided, and the race was 55% Kerry, and 45% Bush. In State B, 86% of the voters were undecided, and the race was 12% Kerry, and 2% Bush. Although in both states the spread between Kerry and Bush is 10%, the race "seems" much closer in state A. David's methodology gives a quantification to that "seems" by reporting State B as 85.71% Kerry, 14.29% Bush.

This does not explain why David chooses to use two decimal places in his reporting, and I agree with your argument that two decimal places is overly precise for the known margins of error.

Posted by: osterizer at July 23, 2004 12:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Rock_nj:
OBL is not just GWB's only hope - GWB is OBL's only hope.

If OBL attacks the USA the weekend before the election, GWB will "show" his leadership to protect us helpless Americans from the Evil One. GWB wants a bounce - last time OBL acted on cue, it gave him a 40% jump in approval. Hot!

If GBW is re-elected, OBL is guaranteed that the USA will continue to be globally vilified, the best recruitment device imaginable! Neat!

This is GBW's prayer:
Dear God, Help OBL to attack the USA so that the Americans will be terrified into voting for me.

This is OBL's prayer:
Dear Allah, Help GBW be re-elected so Americans will be so hated the entire Islamic world will fall into my hands. As planned.

Silly Democrats, how dare you accuse GBW of lying about state sponsorship of Al Queda!!

Posted by: jogabr at July 23, 2004 04:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Jogabr: Here's my tin-foil hat. You need it more than I do. :)

I think in the days after 9/11, when people really *did* have cause to be afraid, it was natural for people to rally behind their leader -- chosen or not.

If there's another attack between now and 11/2, I think almost everyone will recognize it as a failure on the part of the Bush administration -- who took our freedoms, our surplus, our international good-will, and the lives of tens of thousands of people -- and still were unable to prevent another attack.

An attack by OBL would almost surely result in a Kerry landslide the likes of which none of us could imagine.

Posted by: osterizer at July 23, 2004 05:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I agree. For most of the population (those who weren't Richard Davis or Gary Hart and focused intently on the problem of terrorist attack), 9/11 came out of the blue, a complete and utter shock. In that circumstance, not knowing any of the background of what happened, or what might follow on, it was natural for people to turn to their elected leaders (Giuliani, Pataki and Bush, in particular) for guidance and whatever sense of security they could get.

That's not anything like where we are now. Now, the Bush administration has had almost 3 years to respond to the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and for much of that time had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted (and even when they *didn't* have a blank check, they did whatever they wanted anyway). Where we are at right now is *their* responsibility, and can no longer be blamed on previous administrations or the shock of the unexpected. Three years is more than sufficient time for them to have moved heavan and earth to protect us from another attack, especially given the bi-partisan support they received during that time.

They done things, alright, very major things. They invaded Afganistan and Iraq, they created the Homeland Security Department, they passed the USA Patriot act. It cannot be said that they haven't done anything=in response to the crisis, and people know that. The real question is, is what they've done been effective in protecting us from further attacks. I would say that, on the whole, it has not, but other might disagree.

No matter, because if and when another terrorist attack comes, the question will be answered for everyone. There will, I think, be little or no rallying around "the President", and blame will be directed almost solely at the administration.

While I've predicted that any bounce from a capturing OBL October suprise would be mild and transient (and also that it won't happen because OBL is already dead), there won't be *any* bounce from a terrorist attack, and popular sentiment will not allow Bush to cancel or postpone the election either (since any attack will necessarily be local, there's no particular reason for any postponement except perhaps in the affected areas).

Another attack will kill any chance Bush had of being elected President.

Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 23, 2004 06:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Actually, the GECC is Chris's, not mine. And he has promised us a complete version of his (final) methodology soon. One thing I can tell you is osterizer is correct: Chris only looks at the vote exclusive of all minor parties.

Posted by: DavidNYC at July 23, 2004 06:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ack! My apologies to you and to Chris.

Posted by: osterizer at July 23, 2004 08:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Thanks for the offer of the tin-foil hat. I think I will take my chances and do without. ~~~

Posted by: jogabr at July 23, 2004 11:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 12:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Swing State Project

Campaign & Election News - Covering Key Races Around the Country

Premium Sponsor

Featured Sponsor

Our Sponsors

Syndicated Feeds

Ad Networks

Site Stats

Primary Sponsor

About the Site

Blogroll

Thursday, July 22, 2004

General Election Cattle Call, July 22

Comments