« Republican Scum Compare Ginny to Hezbollah | Main | Predict the Winning Map Contest! »

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Morning Open Thread

Posted by DavidNYC

Because you guys always wanna talk about new polls, and because I'm in class.

P.S. Check out this vintage piece from Polling Report - dated Feb. 27, 1989 - on the incumbent rule. Here's the graphic summary of their research:

[Image missing.]

Note that this chart doesn't mean that challengers get 82% of the undecided vote - it means that in 82% of races, most undecideds break for the challenger. Also, I misspoke earlier in comments when I said that the incumbent rule applies only to presidential races - it applies to all races. But read the article for the full picture.

Posted at 11:24 AM in General | Technorati


I am particularly interested in your
comment correcting a previous statement
that you made, that the rule applies to
all elections,including presidential
elections. I don't see that point made
in the piece. Can that statement be
Jim Guglielmino
Kansas City

Posted by: James Guglielmino at October 27, 2004 12:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Jim, see this piece.

Posted by: DavidNYC at October 27, 2004 12:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In Florida there are 60,000 absante ballots in Broward County. They are trying to disenfrachise this heavily populated democratic county. On Fox and Friends they can't stop complaining about the newly register voters in Ohio. It's almost like they are crying Foul for Bush if he losses the state.

Posted by: godfrey at October 27, 2004 12:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

oddly, of the four elections he looks at, three included significant third party challengers -- Perot twice and Anderson in 80. In the one election that didn't have such a challenger, the incumbent's vote totals increased from the final polling average.

The reason people argue that the 50% rule is wrong in a presidential race is that the challenger is almost as well-defined as the incumbent. This holds true for major party challengers, but not wild cards, who aren't nearly as well-defined. It's not surprising to see people who don't particularly like an incumbent nor a well-defined challenger remain undecided, then cast a protest vote on election day. This is rather different from remaining undecided, then voting for a well-defined challenger.

I'd like to see the average increase for the major party candidate in those four elections. I still don't believe the incumbent rule holds in presidential elections.

I continue to hold a lot of hope for Kerry because of the other factors that lead to greater inaccuracy of polls this year. But the incumbent rule is a slender reed to cling to.

Posted by: wilson at October 27, 2004 01:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"The numbers for challengers look quite different. In every case, the challenger(s) -- I include Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 -- exceed their final poll result by at least 2 points, and the average gain is 4 points. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received 51 percent, fully 6 percentage points above his final poll results."

So the major party challengers gained significantly, not just Perot. I don't see any reason why this election should break the trend. All the talk about "9/11 changed everything" is spurious and not borne out by any evidence--undecideds will break for Kerry, I'm guessing about 4 to 1.

Posted by: JoshR at October 27, 2004 01:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm sure you saw this piece, yourself, but Ohio Democrats are facing heavy obstacles (er, once they're located). The good news from Cincinatti et al might be overshadowed by disenfranchisement if people aren't out there protecting the vote!

Posted by: shimamoto at October 27, 2004 02:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

That's why I'm doing election protection with Impact2004.org, shim. I hope you - and everyone else who reads this blog - is doing something similar.

Posted by: DavidNYC at October 27, 2004 02:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Should Kerry make an attempt at MO? Could he visit there once and run some advertisements in an attempt to close the gap in MO. Two polls today from MO say it may be close:

Post-Dispatch: Bush 48, Kerry 45
Kansas City Star: Bush 49, Kerry 45

Since he has left there, the polls have become very tight. Honestly, I didn���t understand why Kerry ditched MO earlier this year. He was trending upward in the polls when he ditched MO.

Posted by: DFuller at October 27, 2004 04:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

D, word is if we get a massive turnout in St Louis 70-30 AND WE CAN CLEAR 15% IN k.c WE can take Missouri. I will be shocked if we dont see Edwards there in the next few days.

Posted by: godfrey at October 27, 2004 04:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

if the election keeps trending the way it`s been going the last few days kerry will win possibly winning some surprise states. watch out this weekend for a major surprise on the terror front, the bush people will push the idea an attack is about to be launched of massive proportions in one last try at scaring the public.

Posted by: joel at October 27, 2004 06:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The latest set of Zogby tracking polls are out

In Colorado, Kerry led 50-46 percent; Florida, Bush 48-46 percent; Iowa, tied 45 percent; Michigan, tied 47 percent; Minnesota, Kerry 47-44 percent; New Mexico, Bush 47-44 percent; Nevada, Bush 51-44 percent; Ohio, Kerry, 46-45 percent; Pennsylvania, Kerry 49-46 percent; and Wisconsin, Kerry 50-46 percent

I don't believe the Colorado number (much as I'd like to). Ohio is good news for Kerry, Wisconsin is even better, NM is closer, IA is still tied, PA is about where I'd expect it to be, FL and MN are where I'd expect them to be. The MI number isn't great for Kerry but I don't believe its accurate any more than the Colorado number.

Good news overall for Kerry.

Posted by: erg at October 27, 2004 06:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

With everyone is distrusting the poll numbers, there's a
comedian giving a rationale
that the swing state voters are being harassed
too much for the polls to be accurate.

Posted by: Jim at October 27, 2004 06:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

those zogby polls are nuts. 3 days ago kerry had a 10 point lead in michigan and now it`s gone.he is the only one showing kerry up in colorado. ohio, minn, pa, and florida seem in line, but i`d take his polls with a grain of salt.3 days ago he showed the hispanic vote 50-50 and today he said kerry has a 2-1 lead. zogby polls seem upside down, i guess we willl find out next tuesday!!!!!

Posted by: jeremy at October 27, 2004 07:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'll put this here because it is the most recent open thread...

I know most people here have said the Michigan is relatively solid for Kerry and has been for a while now, but this is still worth mentioning. The Detroit News, a very conservative newspaper, refuses to endorse either candidate for President.

"This decision to remain silent will disappoint readers who expect The Detroit News to stand with the Republican presidential candidate come hell or high water. Their expectations are not unwarranted - we have never endorsed a Democrat for president, and only failed to endorse twice before, both times during the Franklin Roosevelt years."

The article is very tough on both candidates (which is typical for the News to be against the Democrat), but it is really hard on Bush.


This may be worth forwarding on to those select undecideds that won't be bothered by the negatives the News lists about Kerry.

Posted by: Dan Hogan at October 27, 2004 07:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Well, Bush is in Michigan for the next few days. He may see a chance there, or he may just have decided that OH and PA are out of reach. I know time is extremely precious for Kerry, but another visit to Michigan would be useful.

Michigan should still be good for Kerry. There is the union strength, the Arab American vote, plus the elderly vote outraged over Bush's drug importation bans. But he may have to pay a visit there.

LA Times has another set of polls out PA: even, FL: Bush by 8, Ohio Kerry by 6. The La Times is a bit erratic in terms of polls, and this is the first non-partisan poll to show a dead heat in PA in the last 3 weeks. So I think Kerry is still good in PA. Ohio, Kerry is not up by 6, but I think he is getting stronger in the state and Bush seems to have more or less abandoned it.

FL -- I don't think Bush is up by 8, but I do think he holds a slight lead there. We have the rumored CBS poll showing Kerry up by a lot, but lets see if thats released.

Even if Bush takes FL, Kerry can win by taking OH and holding MN and WI and getting one of (NH, NM). He can afford to lose Iowa.

Posted by: erg at October 27, 2004 07:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

If you are for Kerry, assume that we are behind by a lot. Don't watch or listen to the polls (or terror threats). Get the vote out! Volunteer for the local party and call every likely Kerry voter on election day. This is the second most important election of our lives. The first was Gore vs Bush, but we didn't realize it.

I walked the streets for the Ohio Dems on Saturday. I met a woman who was picking cans out of a trash can. She's not a myth and not counted as unemployed. She came up to me to confirm her polling place. She was voting for Kerry.

I met many families with kids in Iraq. They just want them to come home, and they are voting for Kerry, because he's their best chance at bringing their kids home.

Posted by: Randy at October 27, 2004 08:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Zogby is showing an uptick for Kerry in Ohio, a definite trend.

The word from Ohio, guys, is complete wierdness, bordering on fright. It's the Halloween season, so what else can you expect? Registered voters are receiving cards in the mail with their voting location, precinct number, a bar code and a serial number! Talk about fascism. Listening to the black helicopter crowd, what else is next? An implanted chip with age, rank, and serial number?

Republican operatives are also being hired in Ohio to challenge voters *in* their respective voting places. If an Ohio voter is challenged, he or she has to vote with a provisional ballot, not a regular one.

I hope everyone spreads the word about these Republican big brother tactics that I have
reported in Ohio. Voting, one of our most precious of freedoms, is in grave danger and must be protected. The importance of voting Democratic for every office is evidenced by these
unfair, unfree, fascist tactcs.

Posted by: Shar at October 27, 2004 09:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

well pat buchanan is playing his bush is killing kerry in all the battleground states game again.
of course he is cherrypicking every pro bush poll and ignoring all pro kerry polls. it`s absolutely criminal what msnbc lets him and scarborough do, if you watched this show you would think the election is over.just turns my stomach.almost all polls show kerry winning ohio & pa and looking pretty good in mn.,wisc and even iowa.anyway just wanted to get this off my chest.

Posted by: james at October 27, 2004 10:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I quit worrying about the polls over a week ago. As we approach Election Day, it's obvious that things in the swing states are going to stay too close to call. Anything can happen in any one of them. OH sounds like it is going to be a huge mess, with Democrats crying voter disenfranchisement and Republicans crying voter fraud. In a worst-case scenario, could the federal government disqualify a state's vote if it is too screwed up to sort out? If it once again goes to the courts, I'm afraid Bush will again have the advantage.

What's with this hour-long video from Pakistan that ABC has turned over to the government and CIA? They're trying to determine if it's legitimate or not. Apparently, it's got some terrorist speaking about horrific acts of terrorism planned for our nation, though there's no mention on the news wires of when or where the strikes would take place.

Posted by: pepe at October 27, 2004 10:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

A comment on this thread was deleted. Name-calling (of other commenters) is not permitted on this blog. But call Bush & Co. names all you like.

Posted by: DavidNYC at October 27, 2004 11:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

What the deal with the Democratics Youngstown, Ohio, mayor who endorsed Bush?

Posted by: Mark at October 27, 2004 11:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

bayou, hardly. Youngstown is one of the most Democratic places in Ohio. In 2000, Gore got more than 60% of the vote in Mahoning County. That's why it seems odd, and politically risky, for the city's Democratic Mayor to support Bush.

Posted by: Mark at October 28, 2004 12:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Strong arm Republican tactics in Ohio:


This is not freedom or democracy. It harkens back to Dred Scott and the days of slavery.

Pepe, any federal judge who would disallow Ohio votes from counting towards this election is, IMHO, guilty of treason. As for your hour long terrorist tape, let's hope and pray that Bushco takes this threat more seriously than they did the warnings of planes flying into buildings during the summer of 2001.

James, I read at a democratic website that NBC, owned by General Electric, received a huge multi million dollar defense contract. NBC and its affiliates CNBC and MSNBC appear to be biased in favor of Bush and Cheney.

Posted by: Shar at October 28, 2004 02:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I grew up in Youngstown and graduated from Youngstown State. The Mahoning Valley is a bizarre place due to the strong mafia presence. There is no place in OH where the Democrats are more influential, so it surprises me that their mayor openly supports Bush! I guess a lot has changed since I left that very depressed and very depressing area over 20 years ago. I was back there visiting family last summer, and I couldn't believe how bleak things were in the Mahoning Valley, and especially Youngstown. I can't imagine Kerry getting less than 70 to 75-percent of the Mahoning Valley's vote.

Posted by: pepe at October 28, 2004 06:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

There was a poll out recently that gave statistics about the "importance of the election" or "relevance of the election on your life" or something like that. Does anyone have more information on that? I'd like to see the breakdown there. I know CNN has an article up about voting on college campuses. It is way up and Kerry is getting a boost from it.

I'd be very curious to hear a comparison between that poll and the methodology that current pollsters are using to get their "likely voters" numbers (from someone who really understands the various polls out there). Anyone up to that?

Posted by: Dan Hogan at October 28, 2004 09:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This close to the election, Buchanan turns into a full partisan. He was definitely cherry picking polls. He angered me enough that I swore never to look at Scarboro country again.

He also had a senior Bush campaign official and Dee Dee Myers on. Myers is a democrat, but she's not involved directly with the Kerry campaign and could not refute these polls. Nor did she point out that Bush seemed to have largely given up on PA and even OH.

Re -- the mayor of Youngstown, OH. He may genuinely believe that Bush is better, just as the Mayor of Crawford believes that Kerry is better. People who support Bush may be profoundly wrong, but they're not evil in general.

Posted by: erg at October 28, 2004 11:26 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Unfortunately, the comment in which I was called an "idiot" was not deleted from this thread. At least I wasn't compared to Hezbollah.

I have a feeling that this site is not legit and not worth my postings.

Posted by: Shar at October 28, 2004 01:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

2000 final polls: http://pollingreport.com/2000.htm#LATEST

Gore was up in only two polls but still won the popular vote. Of course, one factor in 2000 that isn���t in 2004 is the Nader effect. In 2000 Nader polled from between 2-7% but only got 2.7% of the vote. A lot of people who said they were voting for Nader in the polls actually voted for Gore.

Posted by: DFuller at October 28, 2004 02:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Another post has been deleted on this thread, and the poster has been banned. Listen, people, if you directly name-call or insult another poster here, you are not welcome. I don't care if you post the cure for cancer, or the most brilliant political analysis since Tocqueville. If you call someone else an "idiot" on here, your posts will be deleted and you will probably have you IP address banned.

If you can't find a way to criticize someone without insulting them or calling them names, then get off this blog.

Shar, my apologies to you for not being quicker on the trigger.

Posted by: DavidNYC at October 28, 2004 02:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

For those interested, I've posted my latest (10/27) survey of 67 Electoral College tracking / prediction / projection / forecast sites HERE.

Executive summary: By the evidence of the trackers, the race continues to be virtually tied: Bush has 253-257 votes and Kerry has 248-254. Although one candidate or the other shows a slight edge in one category or another, neither has a clear-cut advantage.

Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at October 28, 2004 05:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment