CNN Backtracking, but not Flip-Flopping

[Nbadan]

What's that about big leads in the Gallup polls yesterday?


*sic*
"For now, at least, the trend appears to be moving Kerry's way.

Bush, who held a commanding edge coming out of his convention last month, is now clinging to statistically insignificant leads in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and Florida, which hold a total of 53 electoral votes. (Even if he doesn't carry Colorado, Kerry's current electoral tally could gain four of that state's nine electoral votes. Voters there are considering a ballot initiative that would distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote.)

Kerry, who has struggled for weeks in some of his party's traditional strongholds, now appears to have solidified his standing. New polling shows the only so-called "blue" states where Kerry's lead is less than five points are Michigan and Pennsylvania, which hold a total of 38 electoral votes."

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/15/electoral.map ... )

[Marcus Bryant]

The Neocon controlled Washington Post/ABC poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/?nav=left) has Bush up 51-46 over Kerry today.

[Nbadan]

I'm sure W would rather be doing better in battleground State polls. Remember, its the electoral college that decides the election...

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 284 Bush 247

http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct19.png

Electoral-vote (http://www.electoral-vote.com)

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, and not some Kerry supporter's electoral college map.

[Nbadan]

It was all good when W was in the lead, but now that your boy is behind its a 'Kerry supporter' site?

[Marcus Bryant]

I have never used that site, regardless of what it showed. Try again you fucking moron.

[Nbadan]

I can prove that you have, but making you eat your words has gotten a bit redundant.

[Marcus Bryant]

I haven't, so you won't be able to.

That's not the polling site I visit.

[Marcus Bryant]

but making you eat your words has gotten a bit redundant

Keep dreaming crazy fucker.

[CosmicCowboy]

Even if he doesn't carry Colorado, Kerry's current electoral tally could gain four of that state's nine electoral votes. Voters there are considering a ballot initiative that would distribute their electoral votes based on the popular vote.

which will be IMMEDIATELY ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

not on partisanship but constitutionality. slam dunk...but it will still be a "conspiracy" in some feeble minds...

[exstatic]

CC - Why is that? Maine (1972) and Nebraska (1991) already have the provision to divide their electoral votes. It's just never kicked in. The electoral votes ALWAYS used to be divided, until the party or parties in power realized that winner take all was better for them. Check out the link below, CC.

electoral system (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/TeachingwithCurrentEvents/ConstitutionNewswire/12450.shtml)

[Marcus Bryant]

It might be that retroactive part.

[exstatic]

It's not really retro-active. The popular election is in November, where they will cast their votes for both Prez, and the initiative to split their electoral vote. If it passes, then the electors will vote that way in December. Not exactly retroactive.


the date the Electors meet is set at the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December
electoral college page (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html)

[Marcus Bryant]

That would be up to the court(s) to decide.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Dan's back to citing electoral-vote.com?

:lmao

Dan, I exposed your ass on this over a month ago, the guy who runs that site is a liberal talk radio host in Philly.

But I guess even though the guy has an online petition to impeach Bush about lying about Iraq on his website, that doesn't necessarily mean he's biased, right?

electoral-vote.com... LMAO!

[Nbadan]

The guy at Electoral-vote.com does a good job of keeping his state polls updated, unfortunately, I think there are some polling companies who are more honest than others. For instance, recent gains measured in single polls for W in Oregon and New Jersey sure looking mighty suspecious now that subsequent polls have been released.

Another polling company that isn't looking to good right now is CNN/Gallup, just look at their flawed methodology...


Total Weighted Sample: 557 Likely Voters
(2000 exit poll actual results in parentheses)

By Political Ideology:
Conservative: 41% (29%)
Moderate: 41% (50%)
Liberal: 18% (20%)

Party ID:
GOP: 39% (35%)
Dem: 35% (39%)
Ind: 25% (27%)

Income:
Over $75,000: 32% (28%)
$50-75,000: 16% (25%)
$30-50,000: 26% (24%)
$20-30,000: 11%
Under $20K: 9%

And if this wasn't bad enough,

Race:
White: 85% (81%)
NonWhite: 15% (19%)
Black: (a subset of NonWhite) 8% (10%)

Not only does Gallup not weight by Party self-identification, a characteristic that is debatably a demographic, they do not weight by race or income either, characteristics that are unquestionably demographics.

Even without the Party ID debate, Gallup is clearly using an unrepresentative sample. To use such shoddy methodology, have such a tight connection to major media outlets, and simultaneously show Bush ahead by more than any other poll, is nothing short of an irresponsible in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign. Shame on you Gallup. Shame on any news outlet that still uses their polls.

Link (http://www.mydd.com/)

[CosmicCowboy]

Electoral Maps at 7 Newspaper Sites Rate the Bush-Kerry Race

By Joe Strupp

Published: October 19, 2004 4:00 PM EDT

NEW YORK While most newspapers, and some readers, obsess over the latest polls on the presidential race, many students of politics know that the electoral college is all that matters in the end. Several newspaper Web sites offer maps and guides which forecast each state, based on expert opinion and local polling.

So what's the consensus less than two weeks from election day?

Among seven major newspaper sites, four have Bush leading, while three give an advantage to Kerry. In each case, however, neither candidate is close to having the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, and the sites vary widely in their number of “swing states.”

Averaging the seven sites, one finds 198 electoral votes for Bush and 191 for Kerry.

Some of the maps are interactive, so if you don’t like the results, you can change them yourself.

The Los Angeles Times has the most electoral votes up for grabs: 220. With what’s left, it gives Kerry a lead of 170 to 148. It’s one of the few sites that calls New Jersey, Louisiana and Virginia very much in play.

The Philadephia Inquirer also leaves a lot of electoral votes unaccounted for, while showing Kerry with a lead, at 168-166.

The other newspapers are more eager to decide. The New York Times, for example, only leaves 104 electoral votes on the table. It gives Kerry 221 votes leaning or strongly in his camp, while Bush has 213.

But the rest of the sites all give the edge to Bush. At USA Today it’s Bush by 216-213, at the Washington Post it’s 208-170, at The Boston Globe it’s 213-179. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale also gives Bush a 222-217 “bulge” (pardon the expression).

The maps all put a bunch of states solidly in one camp or the other. And they all agree on a handful of states considered swingers: New Mexico, Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Hampshire. After that, it gets really interesting.

States such as Arkansas and Arizona, which had seemed solidly for Bush, now show up as undecided on some maps. The Boston Globe has Connecticut only leaning to Kerry, not solidly for him.

All but one site calls Pennsylvania up for grabs, but The New York Times give it to Kerry. It also gives Oregon and Maine, widely seen as toss-ups, to Kerry.

On these maps, Missouri and West Virginia sometimes lean to Bush, while Kerry seems to have Washington and, maybe, Minnesota and Michigan.

[Hook Dem]

The colors on the maps are "running". It must be raining "common sense". :lol