# We're in the home stretch: Election predictions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032 "2004-10-13T16:49:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/181 "2004-10-20T15:05:36Z")
OK, here’s another factor to toss into the consideration-blender: A couple hours’ telephone time has reacquainted me with the Caller ID factor. Are some (or all) of the professional call centers that do paid polling set up so that the recipient does not see the caller’s originating telephone number? Many folks have a service now where incoming calls of this nature are blocked. Some such blocks return a voice message to the caller, “Speak your name and organization at the beep” and then go to connect the call (with or without some kind of subsequent filter, I don’t know??). Some blocks return a voice message “Enter your own area code and phone number now in order to complete this call”. At least a few simply result in a recorded voice message “If you want to make this call, unblock your caller ID and dial again”. Presumably more than a few people have some type of system (automated or plain old “peek before lifting receiver”) for screening out callers, and in swing states during election season would have ample reason to be tired of receiving calls from pollsters and PACs. Question: would there likely be any politically-skewed distribution occurring as a consequence of systems that deny incoming calls to sources that have Caller ID blocked? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/182 "2004-10-20T15:11:13Z")
> [@Avumede](#): > > I predict several states will be close enough that legitimate questions will be raised about the outcome. There will be widespread problems with electronic voting machines (this is already starting to happen). I predict several lawsuits in several states, and we won’t know for sure who the president is until December. Because the Republicans are in power right now, I predict Bush will emerge victorious. > > I don’t necessarily thing the above will be true, but it probably will be at least partially true. The previous predictions of a smooth election disregard how much scrutiny things are under right now, and the emerge of the role of lawyers in the election process. Wow. First it’s torts, now elections: Yet another realm where the only real winners are the lawyers. ---
**Author:** ![braintree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@braintree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/braintree)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/183 "2004-10-20T15:28:19Z")
If I may humbly go out on a limb, I predict Kerry by 7.5 with a MOE of 1. Are there any prizes for being right? BTW, John Mace, in case you’re reading this I’ve got to admit that, after reviewing the issue and being a sarcastic bastard, I’ve changed my mind and have decided that you’re right. I’m sorry about having to admit error but I just found out that in 2000 Fox was exceptionally close at predicting the outcome of the election. Also, I watched Fox News Sunday the other week for the first time in ages and was genuinely impressed by Chris Wallace’s frying of Condoleeza Rice. (I wish George Stenopholis would do something like that. That boy is such a flaccid weenie.) What’s also impressive is that the panel of the usual suspects were shaking their heads over Bush while Juan Williams seemed to have actually grown a spine. I suspect, however, that the change is only temporary for Fox. Wallace may be a consistently fine reporter, I haven’t seen enough of him to say. Murdoch loves his reactionary propaganda. Once the present collection of irresponsible wackos is safely tossed aside, I expect a reversion to normal. And, if the Sox win tonight, that’s got to be an omen. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/184 "2004-10-20T15:31:44Z")
> [@braintree](#): > > And, if the Sox win tonight, that’s got to be an omen. From your name, is it safe to assume you’d find that a _good_ omen? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/185 "2004-10-20T16:09:46Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Question: would there likely be any politically-skewed distribution occurring as a consequence of systems that deny incoming calls to sources that have Caller ID blocked? Interesting point. I have caller ID and never answer the phone unless I know who is on the other end. I suspect that this would skew things to the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. I’m beginning to think that the betting sites are where you need to look for the best data, even though they tend to contradict my own prediction (of a Kerry win). > [@braintree](#): > > BTW, John Mace, in case you’re reading this… Got it. I have to wonder if Fox has changed much over the years. I never used to watch it until recently and just don’t see the “obvious right wing bias” that so many people profess to see (or perhaps were used to seeing and just assume that it continues). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/186 "2004-10-20T16:15:30Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Wow. First it’s torts, now elections: Yet another realm where the only real winners are the lawyers. You see? There’s always a bright side! 😃 – **BrainGlutton, Esq.** ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/187 "2004-10-23T18:04:19Z")
Well, **John** , you should subject yourself to their Saturday morning “investment” shows, which these days always start out with something which just assumes that 100% of the audience is behind Bush. Today it was that the Dow being higher on Election Day than it was on some other date I disremember - probably Labor Day - predicted a win for the incumbent, while down meant a win for the challenger. So, says the host, the Dow has to rise 500 points in 6 days to predict a Bush win. And this was the first question on the show: how likely this would be, with the obvious assumption that everyone’s rooting for Bush. I have nothing against a 5% gain in a few days, Lord knows, but it has nothing to do with Bush. Anyway, I see by the latest map on [electoral-vote.com](http://www.electoral-vote.com/) that Florida’s tied - wotta surprise - Ohio is doing what it’s supposed to, leaning Kerry’s way, but that the People’s Republic of Minnesota is in the Bush column. Where’s **elucidator**? I want to see an explanation of this one, especially since Jesse Ventura’s endorsed Kerry. He’s looking a bit odd these days, though. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/188 "2004-10-23T23:44:18Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > Odds at Centrebet are: > > BUSH, George W. (Republican Party) 1.47 > KERRY, John (Democratic Party) 2.50 > NADER, Ralph (Independent) 501.00 Current odds: BUSH, George W. (Republican Party) 1.44 KERRY, John (Democratic Party) 2.60 NADER, Ralph (Independent) 501.00 Looks like those who are betting think Kerry’s chances are growing more dim. Dang, I wish I knew exactly how this online betting stuff works. With 1.3:1 odds for Kerry, that is one wager I’d be willing to make. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/189 "2004-10-23T23:46:42Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Looks like those who are betting think Kerry’s chances are growing more dim. Dang, I wish I knew exactly how this online betting stuff works. With 1.3:1 odds for Kerry, that is one wager I’d be willing to make. Correction. That’s 1.6:1 odds for Kerry to win. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/190 "2004-10-24T18:58:08Z")
Here, from [Editor and Publisher](http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000683265), is an update with how things are going in terms of editorial page endorsements: > [@](#): > > Senator John Kerry continued his raid on newspapers that backed President George W. Bush in 2000, grabbing 17 new “flip-flops,” as well as The Washington Post. He has now won over at least 28 papers that went for Bush in 2000, while Bush has only earned two Gore papers. > > However, Bush got a real prize in Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch. > > Kerry now leads Bush 112-69 in endorsements in E&P’s exclusive tally, and by about 14.4 million to 8.6 million in the circulation of backing papers. > > And more setbacks for Bush: The Detroit News, which has never endorsed a Democrat, and backed Bush in 2000, announced that it would sit out the 2004 election, not happy with either candidate. The New Orleans Times-Picayune, another Bush fan from 2000, said the same thing today in an editorial titled “No One to Champion.” A third Bush backer in 2000, the Harrisburg Patriot-News, also declared neutrality today. > > In gaining the Orlando Sentinel (one of the switches from Bush), Kerry completed a sweep of major papers in top swing state, Florida. > > The Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Daily News, and the Memphis Commercial-Appeal were among the 17 papers which backed Bush in 2000 but today chose Kerry. > > … > > Meanwhile, E&P has learned from several sources at the Cleveland Plain Dealer that the paper’s nine-person editorial board decided earlier this week that it wanted to endorse Kerry but Publisher Alex Machaskee, who has final say, has decided on Bush. The paper backed Bush in 2000. > > This has caused consternation in some quarters at the Plain Dealer, with sources telling E&P that the endorsement editorial, which was expected to run Sunday, was put off. One editor told E&P that some at the paper at pushing for, at least, a dissenting pro-Kerry column. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/191 "2004-10-25T04:35:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Meanwhile, E&P has learned from several sources at the Cleveland Plain Dealer that the paper’s nine-person editorial board decided earlier this week that it wanted to endorse Kerry but Publisher Alex Machaskee, who has final say, has decided on Bush. The paper backed Bush in 2000. Damn that liberal media! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/192 "2004-10-25T15:41:45Z")
Summary so far: Kerry: 23 Bush: 14 ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/193 "2004-10-25T15:45:16Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Current odds: > > BUSH, George W. (Republican Party) 1.44 > KERRY, John (Democratic Party) 2.60 > NADER, Ralph (Independent) 501.00 > > Looks like those who are betting think Kerry’s chances are growing more dim. Dang, I wish I knew exactly how this online betting stuff works. With 1.3:1 odds for Kerry, that is one wager I’d be willing to make. I’ll offer better odds - as much as you want to bet on Nader I’ll give you 1000:1 odds. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/194 "2004-10-25T17:59:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Summary so far: > > Kerry: 23 > Bush: 14 Summary of what? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/195 "2004-10-25T18:02:15Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Summary of what? The number of posters who predicted a win for that candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Tigers2B1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc29f/32.png) [@Tigers2B1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tigers2B1)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/196 "2004-10-25T18:05:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The number of posters who predicted a win for that candidate. Just wait — someone here will claim prediction fraud. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/197 "2004-10-25T18:11:57Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > Just wait — someone here will claim prediction fraud. Well, I did disenfranchise anyone who started his post with anything like 'it’s really too close to call…". There were a few posters who tried to make a prediction while hedging so strongly that I had to assume they really weren’t making one. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/198 "2004-10-25T18:16:02Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’ll offer better odds - as much as you want to bet on Nader I’ll give you 1000:1 odds. I won’t take the bet, but I wouldn’t offer 1000:1 odds either - what if Bush and Kerry both die in terrorist attacks in the next week? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/199 "2004-10-25T18:17:22Z")
> [@bup](#): > > I won’t take the bet, but I wouldn’t offer 1000:1 odds either - what if Bush and Kerry both die in terrorist attacks in the next week? Nader still wouldn’t win. ---
**Author:** ![Fiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Fiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiver)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/200 "2004-10-25T18:29:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Nader still wouldn’t win. True enough; I _assume_ (but really have no idea) that Cheney and Edwards would become the new nominees (maybe after a very-hastily-convened pair of emergency conventions?), but even if not, an elephant or a donkey would still keep the prize out of Nader’s reach. 1000:1 odds are probably safe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032.md?page=11)