# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/141 "2004-10-17T20:49:31Z")
**Sam** : But hasn’t Gallup consistently been the one that has been an outlier showing Bush more strongly ahead than anyone else? There is a lot of debate over how they choose their likely voters…And, perhaps even how their sample of registered voters is. Anyway, unless other polls confirm what Gallup is seeing, I think the race is closer than what Gallup shows. As for all this betting that has broken out, [I’m still sticking with Niels Bohr](http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2041): “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/142 "2004-10-17T20:53:16Z")
By the way, why are you surprised that the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Bush? [They did so in 2000 too.](http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/Political.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/143 "2004-10-17T21:01:03Z")
I agree that the race is closer than Gallup shows. But it’s also not a tie, which one of the other polls last week showed. I think the real spread right now is probably around 3-4%. A Bush advantage, but certainly not insurmountable. But Kerry’s the one who has to shake up the campaign somehow, and regain some momentum. If this trend carries through the election, it’ll be Bush by a squeaker, with maybe 280-300 EC votes and a small win in the popular vote. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/144 "2004-10-17T21:11:51Z")
[Here](http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6521523) is the scoop on newspaper endorsements from Reuters: > [@](#): > > With just 16 days before the Nov. 2 election, Kerry gained the backing of 27 papers on Sunday and President Bush won nine, according to Editor and Publisher, which tracks the newspaper industry. Kerry leads Bush in newspaper endorsements 42 to 22, the journal said on its Web site. Of the specific papers listed in the article endorsing each side, the endorsements all align with what the link in my previous post had for 2000 with the exception of the Winston-Salem Journal which endorsed Bush in 2000 but made no endorsement this year: > [@](#): > > The paper said had endorsed a Republican in every presidential election since 1968, but it said Bush’s administration was “a presidency in deep trouble” and called Kerry “largely unknown and untried.” And, [here](http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000673213) is the scoop from the Editor and Publisher website itself: > [@](#): > > Kerry gained the editorial backing of at least 28 papers, with Bush winning the support of 14 that we know of, giving Kerry the lead by 43-27 in E&P’s exclusive tally. He has many more large papers on his side, maintaining his “circulation edge” at nearly 3-1: approximately 8.5 million to 3 million (we will post a complete tally later today). > > Among his new supporters were five papers that had backed Bush in 2000: the Bradenton Herald in Florida, the Daily Camera in Boulder, Colorado, the Columbia Tribune in Missouri, Colorado and the Daily-Herald in Arlington Heights, Ill., and Muskegon (MI) Chronicle. > > Two other papers that backed Bush in 2000 announced they would not pick either candidate this year: the Tampa Tribune and the Winston-Salem (NC) Journal. > > … > > Many of the editorials backing Kerry denounced the incumbent in unusually harsh language. The Miami Herald accused Bush of “narrow partisanship.” Up the coast, the Daytona paper cited his “embarrassing performance.” The Sacramento Bee said, “The nation has paid a steep price for Bush’s arrogance - mounting deficits and debt at home, loss of standing and effectiveness abroad…” For The New York Times, his presidency has simply been “disastrous.” > > In supporting Bush, The Indianapolis Star nevertheless called both candidates “unsatisfying” and The Chicago Tribune, in backing Bush, also seemed a bit torn: “There is much the current president could have done differently over the last four years. There are lessons he needs to have learned. And there are reasons–apart from the global perils likely to dominate the next presidency–to recommend either of these two good candidates.” > > … > > But the Tampa Tribune, which has long backed Republicans, declared that it found itself in “a position unimaginable four years ago” when it “strongly endorsed” the president. While it has no deep affection for Kerry it expressed disappointment in Bush, and so it would “not be lending our voice to the chorus of conservative-leaning newspapers endorsing the president’s re-election…But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re- election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a ‘uniter not a divider’ within the United States and the world.” So, all in all, I’d say the truth about newspaper endorsements is different from the spin that was given in **Sam** ’s post. It is also worth noting that the 43-27 lead in major endorsements for Kerry contrasts with the numbers on that other website for 2000 that showed 138 major daily newspaper endorsements for Bush and 52 for Gore. (Admittedly though, I don’t know what the methodology is on that website for compiling the endorsements relative to that of the Editor and Publisher so I don’t know how valid the comparison is.) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/145 "2004-10-17T22:26:23Z")
> [@](#): > > So, all in all, I’d say the truth about newspaper endorsements is different from the spin that was given in Sam’s post. _What_ spin? All I said was one line - “And in other news, the Chicago Tribune has (surprisingly) endorsed Bush for President.” You call that spin? I was surprised Bush got an endorsement - I thought that paper more liberal. Maybe I had it confused with the Chicago Sun-Times. Jeez. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2004, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/146 "2004-10-17T22:42:27Z")
But, your one line incorrectly tagged this as a surprising development. Sorry about the word “spin”…It wasn’t exactly the word that I was looking for since I didn’t mean to necessarily imply intention. By the way, the Chicago Sun-Times also endorsed Bush in 2000, so neither appear too liberal to me on that basis. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/147 "2004-10-18T05:09:59Z")
Having spent 26 years in Chicago, I feel qualified to comment: the Sun Times has been traditionally the Democratic paper, the Tribune the GOP news. Traditionally. I left Chi-town 15 years ago, but have kept an eye on things, and I don’t see a reason to change my description. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/148 "2004-10-18T05:12:47Z")
hit submit too quickly. So **Sam’s** comment about the Trib endorsing Bush becomes “in other news, the sun rose”, which is how I think he meant it, but I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/149 "2004-10-18T08:11:06Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > It is also worth noting that the 43-27 lead in major endorsements for Kerry contrasts with the numbers on that other website for 2000 that showed 138 major daily newspaper endorsements for Bush and 52 for Gore. It’s also worth nothing that, in every presidential election covered by _Editor and Publisher,_ their survey of Presidential candidate endorsements by newspapers has only had **two** previous elections where [the Democratic candidate got more endorsements](http://gadfly.igc.org/politics/liberal_media.htm) than the Republican one. > [@](#): > > The magazine Editor & Publisher has been tracking newspaper endorsements of presidential candidates since 1932. Contrary to the myth of the liberal media, in only two elections since then – 1964 and 1992 – have more endorsements gone to the Democratic candidate than the Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/150 "2004-10-18T16:20:22Z")
> [@True Blue Jack](#): > > I’m really curious about what your reaction would be if the situation were reversed. Would you heave a sigh of relief that the electoral college saved America from “four more years” despite the feelings of the majority of voters? > True Blue Jack Bush winning the EC and losing the popular vote gives the Democrats the excuse to question his legitimacy. (Deear readers, please don’t start screaming “Florida”…it’s been done to death. Thank you.) If Bush wins the EC and loses the popular vote, it’ll be four more years of rabble rousing. If Bush loses the EC and wins the popular vote, Kerry is in for the same treatment. I think the election should turn based on popular vote alone. One standard, one verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/151 "2004-10-18T16:48:03Z")
Here’s my prediction : Kerry wins in a walk, taking Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/152 "2004-10-18T16:50:41Z")
The latest from [Electoral Vote Predictor 2004](http://www.electoral-vote.com/) show Kerry ahead: Kerry 257 Bush 247. Florida (currently tied as far as the site goes) could tip it to either candidate as far as an EC win. I think this site is the most complete of the EC voter sites I’ve seen, incorporating a lot of different local state polls into its calculations. Its also updated frequently. Make of it what you will. 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/153 "2004-10-18T18:59:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Here’s my prediction : Kerry wins in a walk, taking Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. Why did you leave out Texas? 😉 It comforts me somewhat to see the Florida poll is courtesy of Strategic Vision. That means there is a built-in Bush handicap of 3-5 points. What worries me is the less biased national polling showing Bush with a 2-8 point lead. Anybody hear that some electronic voting machines have already started failing? > [@](#): > > Problems were being reported at nine of 14 early voting sites in Broward County on Monday morning. > > Gisela Salas, of the Broward Elections Office, said workers were having problems with a live database connection that is used to verify that a voter is properly registered. [http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1018earlyvoting,0,5840047.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines](http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-1018earlyvoting,0,5840047.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines) ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/154 "2004-10-18T20:55:18Z")
Odds at Centrebet are: BUSH, George W. (Republican Party) 1.47 KERRY, John (Democratic Party) 2.50 NADER, Ralph (Independent) 501.00 I am surprised that Kerry is given such long odds, but these people make their money from this and I expect consider all the polls to determine these odds. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/155 "2004-10-18T21:14:08Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > Odds at Centrebet are: > … > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Here’s my prediction : Kerry wins in a walk, taking Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin. How much money will you make, if you don’t mind my asking, **Hentor**? (I assume your confidence is translating into your placing a wager on **antechinus** ’ site, or one like it, yes? \*\*Apos[/]b]? **BrainGlutton**? **Mr.NiceGuy**? **BobLibDem**? **RedFury**? **Monocracy**? As long-time readers know, I already have several wagers in place from my prediction of two years ago. In addition, I have a nice even $1000 riding on the election at TradeSports. On Bush, of course. If Kerry wins, Mrs. Bricker is NOT going to be happy with me. But I regard that possibility as slight. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/156 "2004-10-18T21:17:51Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > It comforts me somewhat to see the Florida poll is courtesy of Strategic Vision. That means there is a built-in Bush handicap of 3-5 points. What worries me is the less biased national polling showing Bush with a 2-8 point lead. By including the 8 points, I assume you are referring to Gallup’s likely voter number. You shouldn’t. Ruy Teixeira at [www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com](http://www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com) explains it better than I will. However, the likely voter model used by Gallup would suggest that Republicans would turn out to vote at a 8 to 10 percent higher rate than Democrats, when Democrats have voted at a greater rate of about 4% relative to Republicans in the last several presidential elections. Gallup includes more Republicans in their samples and does not weight for party ID. Gallup also predicted a 13% point Bush win in 2000. Believe them at your own risk. You may also want to check out [www.mydd.com](http://www.mydd.com) for analysis and discussion of polling issues. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/157 "2004-10-18T21:22:02Z")
What is this insistence by the conservatives here that one must claim to be wagering money in order to be regarded as feeling strongly about one’s convictions? Is gambling a sign of strength for you? Would my conviction be more or less compelling if I attached a dollar figure to it? I very strongly believe that Kerry will win. It is independent of money. I believed that the Steelers would win yesterday. I did not wager on it. The Steelers won yesterday. I am happy and without regret. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/158 "2004-10-18T21:35:14Z")
I predict Bush wins Wyoming and Texas, and Kerry wins Massachusetss and DC. Outside of that, I’m just not sure. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/159 "2004-10-18T21:45:54Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I agree that the race is closer than Gallup shows. But it’s also not a tie, which one of the other polls last week showed. I think the real spread right now is probably around 3-4%. We’ll see. Today’s [Zogby](http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=895) and [Rasmussen](http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm) tracking polls both call it even, at 45 and 47, respectively. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/160 "2004-10-18T22:18:03Z")
I think you automatically have to add 3 or 4 points to Kerry because the current polls don’t account for new registered voters (and the college vote is going to be huge for Kerry). The polls also don’t reach cell phones so they’re skewing kind of old right now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032.md?page=9)