Slashdot has just linked to http://www.electoral-vote.com/, which tracks US opinion polls as they come out and estimates the electoral college makeup that would result from that electoral result. It's very interesting to scroll back a week and watch Bush's conference bounce, which may now have played itself out if the latest poll is to be trusted (a big If there, of course).
The coloured map showing the collective opinion of each state is also interesting, although I suspect it won't tell actual USAnians anything they don't already know.
If you are a Democrat, you can stop crying in your beer; if you are a Republican, carefully try to pour the champagne back into the bottle. It is still very close.
The coloured map showing the collective opinion of each state is also interesting, although I suspect it won't tell actual USAnians anything they don't already know.
If you are a Democrat, you can stop crying in your beer; if you are a Republican, carefully try to pour the champagne back into the bottle. It is still very close.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 03:07 am (UTC)But it's certainly interesting that, despite national polls showing the candidates running more or less even, Kerry has actually been ahead in electoral votes for the last three months (up until about a week ago)...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 03:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 04:13 am (UTC)Kerry 264 Bush 222
, but that aggregates the 'solid', 'weak' and 'barely' results together. If you ignore all the non-solid results its
Kerry 99 Bush 162
which is much more distinct. That would tend to suggest that Kerry has to do all the work, as his vote is much more marginal than Bush's. i.e a swing state which goes to Bush is a bonus, a swing state which goes to Kerry is his core vote.
The basic problem I see is that Kerry's two main virutes seem to be that he
a) Is a Democrat candidate.
b) Isn't Bush.
He seems to have little going for him on his own.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 04:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 07:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 07:18 am (UTC)Or, if you ignore the 'barely' states but count solid and weak states, it's Kerry 211 - Bush 193.
Some of the states currently showing as solid in the most recent polls aren't really all that solid. Swing states like Ohio is currently showing as solid Bush, but was leaning towards Kerry a couple of weeks ago. On the other hand, New Mexico is currently showing as solid Kerry, but was tied a couple of weeks ago.
Basically, it's gonna be a close election no matter how you look at it... ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 07:35 am (UTC)Another pollster, Rasmussen, has criticized the recent Time and Newsweek polls as being biased towards the Republicans...
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 07:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 11:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 12:04 pm (UTC)There are a couple of other reasons why Arnie's governorship doesn't necessairly mean much for Bush - he ran on a fairly moderate platform (which is more than you can say for Bush), and the Democratic governor he replaced was pretty unpopular (well, he'd have to be for there to be a recall election in the first place). Oh, and he's married to a Kennedy. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 06:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 06:22 am (UTC)the sample contained a far greater percentage of Republicans than there really are
I'm guessing that that means the following: in addition to asking who they plan to vote for as President, they ask whether they are either a registered Democrat or registered Republican. The exact numbers of each are publically available, so this can be used to detect a systematic bias in the polling method. It would be *very* useful to know these figures for every poll when assessing what the poll means. Or to plot each poll as a point on a graph, where the one axis is "estimated lead of candidate" and the other is "registered voter measured bias" - would you get something approximating a straight line?
no subject
Date: 2004-09-09 06:24 am (UTC)