« What We Do From Here on Out | Main | General Election Cattle Call, September 15 »

Friday, October 15, 2004

Charlie Cook Shares His Thoughts

Posted by DavidNYC

Veteran political analyst Charlie Cook did an online chat over at the Washington Post a few days ago. It's most definitely worth a read. Here are a few highlights:

�Ģ Pollsters, almost all of whom use random digit dialing, should be capturing newly registered voters - so don't be tempted to dismiss polls based on the large numbers of new voters. A genuine problem, though, is that polling companies can't reach voters who only have cell phones.
�Ģ The GOP, Cook says, has a 75 to 80% chance of retaining control of the Senate.
�Ģ In "all probability," the victor will be the man who wins two out of the three main battlegrounds: PA, OH, FL.
�Ģ Cook says there are eleven toss-ups: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wisconsin. However, he goes on to say that if the popular vote margin is greater than 1%, the Electoral College doesn't matter.
�Ģ He thinks that turnout will be the highest in 30 years, and that consequently, various state referendums (particularly on gay marriage) won't matter that much in terms of pushing voters to the polls.

Cook also disses Zogby's Internet polls and SUSA's automated telephone polls, even though SUSA has a pretty good track record and the verdict is still out on Zogby. But go check out the chat yourself.

(Via Race2004.net.)

Posted at 02:26 PM in General | Technorati


Speaking of newly registered voters: at least two counties in Ohio are so flooded with new registrations that they have yet to send out their absentee ballots (including my own. While I know one of the guys running the show and would vouch for his integrity, they county boards are claiming it'll be another week before anything gets mailed. "We can only do what we can with what we have," they claim. After your post on Nevada voters, this sets my teeth on edge. Especially since I've spoken to two voters from Geauga county who are newly swung to Kerry's side. (This is admittedly a county in NE Ohio, but they do print the Geauga Republican with pride, so I'm counting it a victory.)

And, in other news: I'm curious about your thoughts on this little blurb from the Times. Is such campaigning usual? Wise?

Posted by: shimamoto at October 17, 2004 07:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I hope you get your ballot soon, by which I mean yesterday. I got my (useless) NY ballot this weekend.

As for that Times article... sigh... I had avoided reading it, mostly because I expect that it is filled with all kinds of phony equivalencies in the name of "balance." Things like, "George Bush said he never equated Saddam and Osama, but these 10 quotes contradict him. Meanwhile, John Kerry said the Iraq war has cost $200 biillion, but it has only cost $120 billion so far. (An additional $80 billion has been budgeted this year.)" Obviously, these two things are nowhere near equal, but the media loves to do shit like pretend that they are.

Of course, maybe the article is a rare example of clear-eyed thinking, but this is the New York Times we're talking about - I doubt it.

Posted by: DavidNYC at October 17, 2004 09:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

While I can understand the reason for dissing Zogby internet polls, I've also noticed how they seems to fall in line with Zogby phone polls. Thus, maybe they're not that bad afterall?

Posted by: rob at October 18, 2004 09:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment