I may not "know" any more than you or the next guy or the pollsters for that matter, but there is something to be said for that unquantifiable "gut" feeling and mine tells me the map that has Bush over Kerry by almost 100 EVs is closer to reality because. . . well, just because that's what I think. I don't have any evidence, authority to point to, or anything. Sometimes it requires a little imagination and that leap of, if not faith, at least partly unfounded belief. I think we're gonna see a massive defection of Kerry voters come Nov. 2 that puts more states in the Red camp for a variety of reasons.

Just like weve been saying steve, nobody knows a damn thing. I guess we'll just have to vote on november 3rd.

My God VP, you're right on both accounts. It is scary to see just viable either option is.

I remember back in '92, conservatives wanted to teach Bush 41 a lesson and many stayed home. They figured Clinton couldn't be that bad and that he'd be retired in '96. Those guys ended up regretting their stubborness. Unfortunately, in 2000 others decided that they couldn't vote for Bush 43 and face God.

Yes, we survived Clinton, and in the end Clinton wasn't all that bad (except for the lying and the stained dress thing). We escaped a Gore presidency, but only by the skin of our teeth. One day 50 million Afghanis and Iraqis will understand just close they came to never being free.

I don't think we'll survive Kerry in 2004. Here's hoping that those on the Right fear a terrorist bomb now, more than they fear facing God later on. Otherwise, some of us will be facing God sooner than we're ready for.

My gut agrees w/ nemesisenforcer, but take that with a grain of salt b/c I've just had a large amount of gumbo.

I keep thinking of 2002. Everyone kept on repeating the mantra of a 50-50 nation and incumbent party losses, &c. Yet W. and the republicans picked up seats across the board.

Bottom line for me: I don't think this is a 50-50 nation. I didn't then and I don't now. This one comes down to the ground game -- something that will prove a strength for W.

And I know I've been harping on MN and the state fair every time Stephen mentions MN. I'm not the only one that thinks the state fair may have been instructive: http://www.nationalreview.com/battleground/2004/battleground200410192016.asp

The polls also do not recognize the HUGE get out the vote effort of the Bush Campaign, something that was quite lacking in 2000. The GOP has spent most of this year Identifying, registering, motivating, GOP supporters. The GOP has also developed a grass routs effort very similar to that used by Democrats. On Election Day, we will have poll watchers with a list of GOP voters, in the afternoon those watchers will call ALL THOSE GOP VOTERS to remind them to vote in offer them rides to the polls. This is going on in every precinct of every contested state and many uncontested states!

Frank,

The election is 11/2 - not 11/3. At least I hope it all ends on 11/2...

lawguy,

The polls don't take into account the huge "steal the vote" effort being put on by the Democrats right now, either. Bush needs to win BIG so that we can all go to bed on 11/2 and sleep soundly. No more Y2Ks!

The polls are a bit more consistent on the voters' underlying assessment of the candidates eg Best Leader, War on Terrrorism etc. These do consistently run in favor of Bush by significant margins. That factor would tend to favor your scenario 2 and would make scenario 1 quite unlikely.

In response to lawguy:

I am not the type that typically gets invested in party politics. In fact "party" based rooting usually makes me ill. But, re-electing Bush is so important to me that I signed up as a the precinct captain for the GOP in my area and will be one of those people making a thousand phonecalls on 11/2 and offering rides.

And to nemesis, my gut concurs with yours.

Fingers crossed.

I voted for Bush in 88. I voted Libertarian in 92. I'm glad I did.

We got a Republican House and Senate because Clinton was President. Bush 41 was a horrible President, I am glad he lost.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and I'm voting for him again this year.

Stephen, you're making me even more crazy than I already am (and that's saying something).

My gut feeling is that the country is not so evenly split as the MSM likes to say it is; they can't admit the truth even if they could see it -- I have my doubts.

It's true that the Republicans have been working on their grass roots and that overall, Republican registration efforts have exceeded Dem's over the past four years -- Geraghty over at KerrySpot did a review of this data quite recently, and it was encouraging.

The real question is, will Republican's genuine voters be enough to offset all the Democratic fake ones? Will the NY legislature stop sitting on its hands and vote so they can free up the funding and purge the roles of those duplicate 46,000-odd FL registrants?

Even in the true Blue States, it's important for Bush voters to vote -- that way when Bush wins (yes, I believe it's "when", not "if"), he'll have done so with a majority of both electoral and popular votes, and there will be, God willing, absolutely nothing for the lawyers to do.

Delegitimizing our election process by forcing this one into litigation after the 2000 debacle would be devastating. I'm praying that everyone listens to Hugh Hewitt's advice: "If it's not close, they can't cheat."

The results of the '02 elections seem like positive data. I'm hoping similar trends hold this year.

One thing I'm pretty sure of, though, is that this election is going to be decided by the level of Republican turnout. Massive Democratic turnout is, I think, a given this year, given the massive and overwhelming anti-Bush hysteria in their camp...it doesn't matter that most of them couldn't care less about their own candidate...they hate Bush so much that they'll brave any obstacle to get their ballots cast.

The question on which our lives all hang is, do enough Republicans feel as strongly about either re-electing Bush or defeating Kerry to balance out that effect?

In some ways I'm fortunate...I can cast a principled ballot for the Libertarian party and not lose any sleep over it, since I don't live in a battleground state. (The map could be all-red except for two states, and mine would be one of the two. There is no possibility whatsoever that my state won't go for the Democrats...so my miniscule share of the statistics might as well be counted as meaning something closer to what I believe than the Republican platform. But you can bet your ass I'd be casting a ballot for Bush this year if I lived in Florida or Ohio or even Michigan. Hell, maybe I should...I'm probably still on the voter rolls in all three of those states. :) )

In most ways, though, it really sucks to live someplace where one is surrounded 24/7 by the "Beat Bush at Any Cost!" crowd.

No way does Colorado go blue.

I've already voted Libertarian. I think the second myp is correct. I call it the Giuliani factor. While living in northern NJ you get alot of NY news. I was always fascinated on noone every had anything nice to say about the man, but he was always re-elected. And that man pissed off every group he could think of.

Um, I choose Map Number Two, Alex, for $100.

And will be doing my part to ensure it turns out that way. Anyone need a correspondent in the Florida Panhandle?

I just don't Kerry has got the stuff to close it out. Just look at him on the campaign trail. He's dour and negative, uninspiring, has never articluated a coherent vision for his Presidency, and is resorting to scare tactics like the draft.

Sorry, but that's not the sign of a winner. It's a sign of Bob Dole, and probably a similiar result. Split the poll difference and Bush is up by around 4 points...enough to give him most swing states and 290-310 EV.

Florida is a must win for Bush and here is how it will happen, first of all remember in 2000 how the state was called for Gore before the panhandle voted ! That is not going to happen this, year and there are a lot of conservatives out there heck that is southern AL / GA. Second I live in south florida and in 2000 I was in my own kitchen calling republicans myself on my own, because the party down here was absolutely dismal, not so this year there are literally thousands of motivated activists, now the dems have always had that going for them, and lastly the churches (I am a pastor) are really revved up, in 2000 they were stone cold, this year we registered more than 2000 people in our church alone -yes Broward county!!! These are major factors! In 2002 it was supposed to be a squeaker ... post 9-11 changes everything- even the women vote is being denied from the dems. Take heart.

One nitpick: Does the wargaming model take into account Maine? I mean, they apportion 2 EV for the overall state winner, and 1 EV for the winner of the congressional district? (OT: This is how Colorado should do it, if they are hell bent on splitting EVs).

Because in #2, Maine would most likely be purple.

But in general, yes, it is likely that other than PA, the swing states will go in a block.

A lot of us, particularly in the swing states, didn't get that drunk on the bubble, didn't get much of a hangover, and by now have pretty clear heads.

Those pubbies who vote for Skerry because they think the way to fiscal sanity is a divided bureaucracy are stupid.

Pubbies will fold because they don't want to be called "mean-spirited."

They don't remember the lesson of the mid-90s when the gov shut down. And if the #1 map number comes into play, they're going to have to give in.

And will be doing my part to ensure it turns out that way. Anyone need a correspondent in the Florida Panhandle?

Maybe you should set up your PayPal account to get gas money to haul folks to the polls, sis. Hope all the VRWC folks in your neck of the woods (beach?!) make it to the polls.

Hey, Steve, glad you've finally come around to my jaded view of the polls (and thanks for the link last week). When you have such wild fluctuations within a given tracking poll over a few days' time -- and each poll recording opposite trends on the same day -- you have to conclude that they are worthless.

The polls generally confirm that the election is close. But that revelation ends their usefulness, because a "close election" by definition falls within their "margins of error" -- meaning that they can't reliably tell you who's ahead.

So the irony is this: If the election isn't close, you don't really need pollsters to tell you that; but if it IS close, they can't help you.

So forget the polls for now, and focus on the important stuff... How 'bout those Red Sox?

Dear Brother Crusader ~

Hope all the VRWC folks in your neck of the woods (beach?!) make it to the polls.

No beach here after Ivan, so no distractions. Nothing but time to vote! Speaking of time...

...first of all remember in 2000 how the state was called for Gore before the panhandle voted !...

True! And why, you ask? Most people in the Continental United States have no conception of Florida as anything other than a Cops episode, or a moronic, South Florida hanging pregnant chad debacle. (Actually, that sounds like something Iranians moolahs might do, but I digress...)

News FLASH: there is still lots of Florida left west of Tallahasse, alllll along I-10. Believe or not, we don't quit until ya get almost to Mobile, AL. I wouldn't lie about something so serious.

Second News FLASH: We're on Central time, exactly one hour behind whatever incompetence is occurring in Florida's name down south. Which is why the state gets called for one camp or t'other as soon as Broward, Dade and other counties' returns start coming in, poor bastard orphans that we are. It doesn't pay to be the 'good' kid.

I wonder? Kerry-Edwards appear to have momentum in the key states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And there is a historic 2-3% shift to Democrat presidential candidates, on election day. Bush-Cheney could lose.

I also am disgusted with the cliches.

If Kerry loses, which my gut says he will, I think it will be because he relied too heavily on the assumption Bush had to carry Ohio to win (and, as a result, the president picks up enough other states to more than make up the deficit).

If Bush loses, and this doesn't feel like an election where an incumbent is ousted, it will be because he operated on the assumption the Blue State/Red State paradigm would continue (and as a result, relied too heavily on some states and didn't venture enough into others).

Either way, I agree everyone is talking shit right now...and until one or the other takes a solid lead for a week in the tracking polls--and that probably will not happen--I'm as guilty as everyone else. My assumption is Bush will blow this out, and it's based solely on how things "feel." That's a little less reliable than a coin toss.

The polls seem to be of decreasing value. That is true, for a variety of reasons. But there is evidence of the true state of affairs if one looks for it.

The online futures markets and the online oddsmakers have shown Bush ahead consistently all year. That is what people with money on the table think. That is something. Also, the two have tracked each other closely over the year, which makes me have confidence in both. When Tradesports had bush at 70, the books went to 2/1 against Kerry, when Bush was down to 55, the bookies were at 13/7. This give me confidence that the objective assessment of the odds is about right, since the people using these different markets are probably not the same people.

The econometric models predict a Bush win. That is also some evidence.

The GOP has by all accounts put a massive effort into Get Out The Vote, which is beyond anything they have done in the past. There was an article recently about the very substantial GOP increase in voter registration in Minnesota, for example. And on the day of the election, there will be a very major effort to get everyone to the polls. Ralph Reed is in Florida working on this, and he is the master of retail politics.

I know for a fact that Republican lawyers are mobilized to be poll watchers and take immediate action against vote fraud by the Democrats, which they will try to do. This apparatus is in place in advance this time around.

Kerry is campaigning in states Gore won, and Bush is campaigning in states Gore won. The quality of information the campaigns have is better than anything we in the public have, and if you look at what the candidates are DOING it shows that Kerry is trying to cling to his states and Bush is trying to add to his. This is objective evidence of who is ahead.

If you look at what they are saying, that too shows that the candidates are assessing Kerry as behind and Bush ahead. Kerry is changing his message and fabricating issues to appeal to fear, e.g. the imaginary danger of a draft. This is a sign of weakness. Bush is staying on message because he and his team have assessed that the message works. This is objective evidence that Bush is ahead.

All in all, knock wood, a Bush win seems to be the smart money.

My predictions about the election:
1. Senator Kerry takes Pennsylvania outright and takes Ohio by fraud.
2. President Bush wins Florida.
3. We won't know who won for several weeks due to litigation.
4. Final result: Kerry wins.

The Kerry Administration will get a bad start:
1. Most people, including many who voted for him, don't like him.
2. He doesn't have leadership skills, and his administration will be a mess.
3. Many people will feel he won by fraud.
4. People will be sickened by the cheers coming from the Arab Street.

Intrade bid 59.9 ask 60.7

Team America only did 1/2 as well as expected, $12.1

Look at the trends of the last four years. Fox News has exploded past CNN and threatens the networks.Talk radio abounds. GOP vote drives sign up motivated people who will vote. Dems sign up the economic low end types who typically don't vote unless dragged to the polls. Bush looks constantly upbeat. Kerry looks haggard. Bush promises action. Kerry promotes fear (draft, Soc Security). We are at war. Steve's right; we are "polling" 2000 but the world has changed.

"Kerry is campaigning in states Gore won, and Bush is campaigning in states Gore won."

And the 2000 Red states have gained a net 7 EVs, and the 2000 Blue states have lost a net 7 EVs. So if Kerry only keeps all the Gore states, he loses by more than Gore did.

Bush can do no more than keep the states he won in 2000, and he wins, by a litte greater margin.

Keep in mind as well polling does not usually reflect the 18-30 year old sentiment accurately as most in that age group don't use land line telephones. I don't even have one and use my cell phone for everything. And the youth vote is 2 to 1 for Kerry. I can't say if that will impact the close races but it might give some surprising finishes for some of the "red" or "blue" states. I just know a LOT of people who voted for Bush in 2000 who will not be voting for him again (my entire family) and I know a lot of people as well who voted for Gore but will either not vote or will vote for Bush.
I think this is going to be a fun election night watching the results roll in!

There is a lot of gaming going on right now on many levels. It burnt the republicans in 2000. They should have known better after witnessing the media master Clinton for 8 years. They do know better know.

One reason the polls are useless is one of the internet downsides - the instant online poll. These polls have been gamed by the hate bush crowd from the start and never more blatantly than after the debates. People do like to be winners, and will express that by latching onto another perceived winner. I don't think the results of the instant polls affected the informed or committed voter, but consider the overwhelming advantage Kerry seemed to have after each debate on the network instant polls. Also consider the effect of the MSM slant reflecting a belief in that advantage. The following days saw those effects in the results of traditional polling. This doesn't reflect how that same volatile voter will swing once a winner appears likely closer to the election. The movement that drew Kerry closer to Bush after the debates is simply an artifact of instant online projection and that blip is fading and fading faster in the non-partisan polling than the Zogby and Ramussen polls.

The majority of people vote based on who they see as most competent in addressing the issues most likely to affect their personal security whether independent, democrat, or republican. The fact that someone is registered as a democrat or republican (except for the committed and never wavering base) may affect how they weigh the candidate's stand on security issues, but it had better be coherant and plausible to keep the voter with his party. It was the perception (warranted) that the economy was in trouble and personal security at risk that decided the 1992 election. There were no other security issues to trump this and Clinton was able to attach the worrisome economy to Bush 41 (unwarranted) and win.

This election does not have the economy as a factor. The overwhelming personal security concern is the WOT. Kerry is patently unable to address that concern. That is what we see from Tradesport and the online futures market. It's evident in the specifics in every poll. Bush will have a mandate after this election and a tame legislature for at least 2 years. I don't know whether I particularly like this since I believe the federal government is most palatable when the executive and legislative branches are at loggerheads over domestic issues. But until and unless the DNC can understand the real stakes and come up with better ideas on the WOT, the hell with them.

Hey y'all! (If this has already been said above, please forgive)

There's only one way to make sure the blue map doesn't happen, and that's to believe it could.

And I'm thinking that's Stephen's point.

I don't for a moment accept the claim that the 18-30 vote is 2-1 for Kerry. On the one hand you say that cell phones keep that demographic from being accurately polled, and follow it up immediately with the claim that they are 2-1 for Kerry. Were that true, the election is over already and Kerry in.

That demographic is only 33% in college. 66% are out of the nest and making their voting decision based on the same personal security concerns that older demographics use. Not every 18-30 year old buys into the Daily Show and MTV.

If Kerry could have made the draft scare work, he might have gotten the 18-30 demographic numbers to favor him, but he couldn't.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the polls are crap because they are still going on the assumption that the country is 50% dem, 50% repub. I don't think that's true anymore.

I know lot's of people who voted for Gore and will not likely be voting for Kerry. I don't know anyone who voted for Bush back in 2000.

That should be "I didn't know".

Actuallly, I hope one of your maps is correct and that this isn't a close electoral vote. As a Bush supporter, I'm rooting for map #2. I will be unhappy and fearful if it's map #1, but either way we will have a clear view of where Americans want to go. A pox on this 50/50 ambivalence.

"Keep in mind as well polling does not usually reflect the 18-30 year old sentiment accurately as most in that age group don't use land line telephones. I don't even have one and use my cell phone for everything"

I've heard that before, but I've never seen any real numbers. I know a lot of younger adults use cell phones, but I'm not sure how many don't live in a place with a land line.

If anyone's seen a good study or set of numbers on this, I'd appreciate knowing.

Denise:

This phenomenon first arose (or at least became obvious) when the 2002 polls incorrectly showed a Democratic win. The voters who could only be reached by cell phones, I think people commented at the time, actually trended Republican and were in the post-college, 25-35 bracket. I know this is being spun differntly this time out, and possibly for good reason, but what I wrote above was thought to be true in 2002.

I don't have a link but there were several 2002 newspaper and magazine articles that tried to explain why the polls were so off then (Zogby went from prophet to black sheep over that election).

I wouldn't put too much faith in the final ground game put out by the RNC. I've seen how their 72 hour push is being run, and it sucks.

Also, had dealings a month ago with Bush's team in Florida. At the highest level, they are spoiled brats who think the world revolves around 20-something staffers on their second campaign and that United States Congressmen have nothing better to do than sit by the phone waiting for their next assignment from Buffy straight out of Vanderbilt. Just an outsider's view, but I believe Bush has a pretty solid chance at pissing Florida away with the team he has down there.

That said, I'd bet the final will be closer to the second map (without Florida).

Although there is no data mentioned, this article in the Detroit Free Press says that Zogby believes:

"One other wild card in the race is the enormous increase in recently registered new and young voters, said Zogby, and those voters are breaking for Kerry."

Of course that is Zogby for one thing and a statement with no fact to back it up. Thank the Detroit Free Press for that.

I'm with James. Remember "Payback Tuesday" in 2002? Democratic operatives all over the country thought they were going to teach that dumb George Bushitler and the eeevil Republithugs a lesson they'd never forget: they were going to vote Democrats in everywhere, picking up huge gains in the Congress and the state governments. And, most especially, they were going to get rid of the hated Jeb Bush for rigging the 2000 election in Florida.

What actually happened? The Republicans defied the history of a century and picked up seats in both the House and the Senate, and they strengthened their control of state governments from coast to coast. Moreover, Jeb Bush was re-elected by a landslide.

Similarly, the Democrats pulled out all the stops to keep Gray Davis in office in California last year. Instead, he was voted out by a wide margin, to be replaced by a (liberal) Republican.

A thought re: cell phones and young people (Lord! 18-30 didn't used to be 'young', did it?...grin...)

When I was in college (the 70s and 80s...don't ask...), few college students had phones, and there was much speculation regarding the effect of this on polling data. Fact is, the younger voters have HORRIBLE turnout (unlikely to change much this time), and are far more evenly split than anyone on either side is likely to concede. What does this mean? I am not sure, but I would bet that the whole cell-phone issue is probably more of a statistical phantom than anything else, and won't have any real impact. Might make a good post-election stat analysis project for some poor grad student though...

"The polls all suck, for reasons gone into by people way smarter than I am."

I hate polls, and have lied in two telephone polls I have recieved just to mess with their data. I wonder how many other people are doing the same.

What the polls represent is a sample of people who are willing to sit and answer polling questions. Most rational people are not.

The country is - thank the powers above
- moving to the right. 2002 was an
indication of that. I work at a, well,
left-leaning organization.

No one here is FOR Kerry. At best
they are rabidly ABB.

At least one person who has a Kerry
for Pres. sign has told me privately
that he will be voting for Bush.

I think Kerry lost the campaign back
on August 20 when instead of "Bring
it ON" {have you heard him say that
lately?) he cried "Make the mean
men stop".

Kerry is too weak for most Americans.
So most will, when in the voting booth,
choose to re-elect the President.

My prediciton back in August was:

Bush 51%
Kerry 45%
Nader 4%

EV
Bush 322
Kerry 218

I still think that is accurate. Kerry
is trying to veer rightward on the war
and that will seriously upset some of
his more loony supporters. Who will
go to Nader.

Just checked Tradesports. They've got Bush 291 Kerry 247, and they know a helluva lot more than I do about what is going on. So, I'll stick with that

Turnout is something that I've always seen as interesting.

Every general election there are stories in the news about huge, unpredicted turnout in Democrat areas; People standing in line for hours, not enough ballots, near 100% voting for this group or that, etc.

However in a month or so the numbers start to trickle out -- 51% nationwide turnout, especially low in Democrat areas, 30% turnout in black areas. The early turnout numbers tend to be planted, anecdotal stories planted in a willing newspaper and picked up nationally.

I tend to think that's what's happening on all of the new voter registration. "They'll be voting in huge numbers for Kerry." I'm not aware of any numbers that show last minute registrants vote in higher numbers than long time registrants. My guess is it's just the opposite.

A lot of these stories could be projecting to the media what the activists hope will happen, an effort to keep people going the last mile of the campaign. But in any case they should be taken with a grain of sale.

One further story. In the 04 Iowa Democratic caucuses the Dean people were absolutely convinced of victory because they knew exactly who would be there and who they would be voting for. I remember a CNN interview with one of the workers that was positive of a 40% Dean victory in her territory. It could be even bigger except this voter just had a baby and wouldn't be able to attend, that voter was leaving the state because of a sick relative.

In the end it was all Bunk. The Dean people had no idea who would be at the caucus. The activists were deluding themselves that things were going great. My guess is the whole "all these new voters will be voting" is more self delusion. If a person doesn't register themselves then they really don't care. Signing a card for a paid canvasser doesn't change that.

Here's some strangeness from the latest ABC poll in OH: Kerry up 50-47. Same-sex marriage ban up 48-45. Something's screwy here--I don't see how it's possible for the marriage issue to be so close, when you consider the demographics of the state. Looks like some sort of sample issues, or people are just plain lying. Either way, I'm throwing this poll on the trash heap with the rest.

Just as a side note. I voted today and was talking to the poll workers. They stated that turn out has been three times higher than in 2000 (just under 1000/day in 2004 compared to around 300 in 2000)
This is in a suburb of Dallas.
A clear red state

I think this election will have the highest turnout we've seen in a while. I mean even in 2000 when the nation was so divided, we weren't at war, we hadn't been attacked, the economy was "good", etc. I'm not saying I blame Bush for the change in the environment, but I do think people want to be involved this time around since things are so different than four years ago. I think the number of people who watched the debates, even when the baseball games were on, says something as well. I think turnout, on both sides, will be higher than ever. Certainly not as high as it should be, but I think people feel they have something invested in this election. I know I feel I do much more than I did four years ago.

Polls: have been bad for 40 years and getting steadily worse. I was a grad student in Social Sci at U Mich in 1971, did computer analysis of 1968 polling data. It was awful. 1980 polls. meaningless. 2002 misleading.

Objective indicators economy, political structure all point to Bush victory.

Turnout. driven by long term demographic factors. will trend with all of last series of elections. ealry voters may be high because they seek to avoid crush latter. but total turnout wiil be about the same.

I think young voter turnout will be higher than in 2002, for the reasons Britton gave and that us kids just aren't gonna bother following congressional races &c, but will a Prez race. I doubt it will affect the election. I don't think voting against Bush because "well, I just think he's bad" is gonna inspire a lot of new voters to make the trip to the polls.

However, I disagree that turnout should be higher. This "Vote even though you don't have a clue what's going on" mentality is where a lot of our political problem take root.

I'm with many people in not being sure how this will all play out. Stephen, how about a post a day or two before election day that solicits commenters predictions on what the electoral and national vote count will look like. I think it would be interesting to reference that comment thread to see who does the best job of guessing the final outcome. And yes, I'm muttering a small prayer that 11/2 produces a final outcome...

Aaron,

I agree with you and retract my previous statement that more people should vote. Look at the 2000 results.

I would however like to say that I think more people should be involved, educated and participate. How's that? I also want world peace. Thank you.

I find it interesting that the frequency with which you and others have referenced www.electoral-vote.com has disappeared now that they have Kerry winning the electoral college. As of today they had Florida in his column and Ohio in Bush's. I think it will be the other way around, but in the last few days, the map has turned bluer than ever! :)

People miss the point...

A national poll is a stupid measure because, as we all know, it is quite possible to win the national poll (ie the popular vote) and not the election.

There are only a handful of states "in play," so any meaningful analysis should look at those states and not some national poll.

To make matters worse, what does the phrase "likely voters" mean to you?

To some pollsters, it means you voted in the last 3 elections. This rules out the 18-26 crowd. Some ask screening questions, but then their results are skewed and don't reflect what we know to be accurate percentages by age/race/etc...

You just don't know.

My gut (and the one entity that has predicted every presidential election) says Kerry.

Really interesting numbers. Maybe . . . *shudder* Michael Moore was right when he referred to polls being like "diarhea on a napkin" or whatever.

Seriously though, I think the polls of likely voters are more accurate. There isn't a whole lot of motivation for the majority of 18-25 year olds to get out and vote. Only the most blind ABBs and Michael Moore-fans will vote Kerry, and though there are more Bush supporters among that demographic than one might think, the majority of that age group will remain apathetic, same as always.

Buckland,
I'll go way way out on a limb and predict a nationwide turnout of 58-59 percent. (First prediction ever for me for this election cycle. I'll be so wrong I'll swear off prediction forever. :-)

I still have no intuitions about who will win. None. Gave it 60/40 bush/kerry 6 months ago, and that is about what tradesports is at *today*.

Aaron,
Do you have some real reason to believe that the people who turn out to vote in this election who didn't typically in previous elections are somehow less informed? I know *plenty* of people who vote in every election in a completely mentally lazy party-line fashion, e.g. they come from a family that voted party X and they vote party X.

No real reason (I meant, more specifically, young voters), just personal observation (college, MTV, friends, Rock the Vote type campaigns). You present an interesting possibility that, despite these influences, maybe the population of idiot voters isn't growing faster. I think you may be right that many people with a good understanding of politics, who normally don't, will be voting this time.

I think the youth are more informed than you think. I think this election has changed things for everyone. The youth voters are the ones who have friends stationed in Iraq. Who witnessed at a very impressionable age what 9/11 did to us. Things are different and I think people are definitely paying more attention.

Britton is right, because of the exponential growth of outlets for information, todays youth are as better informed now of the issues that face our country as any group old or young...They smell bullshit better too...

Yup, I just hope that it's the informed one's who do the vast majority of voting instead of the sound-bytes and hear-say crowd that tends to be a lot more vocal.

"Britton is right, because of the exponential growth of outlets for information, todays youth are as better informed now of the issues that face our country as any group old or young...They smell bullshit better too..."

Is that why they're supporting Bush?

And BTW, no-name, you seem to be a pretty blatant sockpuppet.

Young people are overwhelmingly for Kerry. Even here in red state Utah, most young people don't want Bush back because they are afraid of being drafted to fight a useless guerilla war in Iraq.