# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/161 "2004-10-18T22:49:24Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > 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). Does anyone have a cite that more newly registered voters are democrats then repub. I remember hearing it was the other way around in FL anyways. I think I read it in the St. Pete times, but could be wrong. ---
**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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/162 "2004-10-18T23:15:16Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > Does anyone have a cite that more newly registered voters are democrats then repub. I remember hearing it was the other way around in FL anyways. I think I read it in the St. Pete times, but could be wrong. [Zogby](http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=881) > [@](#): > > Election 2004 Reuters/Zogby Daily Tracking Poll: No Movement in Presidential Race; Dead-Heat Continues, Kerry, 46% - Bush, 45%; **Early Indicators Show Kerry Ahead Among Newly Registered Voters (49%-44%), New Reuters/Zogby Poll Reveals** ---
**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 19, 2004, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/163 "2004-10-19T02:45:59Z")
I realized that the Ruy Teixeira link I posted before was a bit incomplete. [http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/](http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/) He has an updated post explaining the problem with Gallup again and discussing it in the context of the other polls. Gallup is so consistently, and in my opinion willfully, wrong that I have to wonder about their motivations. MSNBC today took their data to feature, all day long, a big header about Bush opening up a lead. Bullshit. > [@](#): > > But here are the same three polls, with RV [registered voter] results (all 3-way to match the data released by Gallup): > > Gallup: 49-46 > Newsweek: 48-46 > WP: 48-47 > > So these three polls would then all have Bush under 50 (average: 48 percent) with only a 1-3 point lead. A very different picture and much dicier for Bush. > > And probably much more accurate. Consider these other recent data, all of which paint a very different political picture than that implied by the Gallup LV [likely voter] data and the gaudy USA Today headline: > > 1. The Gallup RV data, while preferable to their LV data, may themselves be flawed. Their RV sample has a 2 point edge for the Republicans in party ID. If that sample is re-weighted to conform to the 2000 exit poll party ID distribution, Kerry leads Bush by 2 points, 49-47. > > 2. The latest Democracy Corps survey, conducted October 14-16, the exact same dates as the Gallup survey, has Kerry up by 3, 50-47. (And see this post for evidence on the superior accuracy of the DCorps survey, relative to Gallup, in the 2000 election.) > > 3. The Zogby and Rasmussen tracking polls have both closed by 4 points in the last two days, eliminating Bush’s leads in these polls. Indeed, as Jerome Armstrong points out over at MyDD, if you include leaners in their trial heats (as most reported national results do), Kerry is now slightly ahead in both polls: 47.2-46.6 in Zogby and 49.5-47.7 in Rasmussen. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/164 "2004-10-19T19:47:12Z")
Update from [http://www.electoral-vote.com/](http://www.electoral-vote.com/), 10/19/04: > [@](#): > > Kerry keeps moving up in the electoral college. A new Survey USA poll shows he has now inched ahead of Bush in Florida, although his 1% lead means the state is still a statistical tie. Nevertheless, we now show Kerry with more than the critical 270 votes in the electoral college to win. Perhaps more signficant, though, is the fact that in states where Kerry’s lead is at least 5%, he has 228 electoral votes. In states where Bush’s lead is at least 5%, he has 183 electoral votes. Clearly the race is still wide open. > > If you love horror stories, Slate has a good one for you by Richard L. Hasen. In it, he describes five ways the presidential election could end up in the Supreme Court. Briefly summarized, they are: > > - Voting glitches involving electronic or other voting machines > - Litigation over which provisional ballots are valid > - A fight over the Colorado amendment to split the electoral vote > - A tie in the electoral college or a faithless elector > - A terrorist attack that disrupts voting in a swing state ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/165 "2004-10-19T20:54:53Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > 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. My questions for both of those would be the same. If you are strongly certain, why not earn some extra cash? I can tell you that I wanted the Redskins to win – and I thought they would win… but I wasn’t certain enough to risk a dollar in a wager. That holds true for pretty much all NFL contests – I think on any given day, the worst team in the league can have a great day and beat the best team in the league. I could certainly undertstand someone saying, for example, that while they’re rooting for Kerry, and believe he’ll win, they don’t have the certainty that would justify putting money on it. And everyone’s risk tolerance is different – I know people that would think twice before betting the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. But that level of cautiousness I don’t really understand. If someone really wanted to offer me such a giveaway bet, I’d take it, because I’m certain enough about the outcome to risk money on it. Here, too, I am certain enough about the outcome that I am willing to risk money. So if someone says they think thus-and-so, but aren’t sure, I understand the reluctance to wager. When someone does not indicate any wavering whatsoever in their certainty, but still refuses a bet, my firsttake on the situation is that their certainty isn’t quite what’s advertised. By the way, if your first sentence ("…that one must claim to be wagering money in order to be regarded as feeling strongly…") has any implication that my claim of existing wagers is inaccurate, I can point to the other Dopers with whom I have wagers as evidence that at least those “claims” are true. Just in case that was the implication. ---
**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 19, 2004, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/166 "2004-10-19T21:22:35Z")
**Bricker** , the fallacy in this continued tack of yours is that you assume the person who _should_ win is the person who _will_ win. I don’t believe that’s necessarily the case. I’m confident that Kerry is a far superior candidate to Bush. I’m confident that Bush has been the worst president of my lifetime and that includes Nixon. However, I am _not_ confident that the Bushies cannot manipulate enough of the public to win the elction. Just because I’m not positive Kerry will win does not mean that I secretly fear he’s not a better candidate. To paraphrase Paul Newman in _The Hustler_, Our candidate is better than yours and even if you win, he’s _still_ better. ---
**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 19, 2004, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/167 "2004-10-19T23:17:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My questions for both of those would be the same. If you are strongly certain, why not earn some extra cash?.. For you, for some reason, the following is true: ``` being certain=willing to bet money ``` and the converse appears to be true as well ``` not willing to bet money=not being certain ``` Do you really feel that these are entirely true? Why is that? Can you conceive of someone feeling certain about something but not wanting to bet money? Are you a pathological gambler? I think your desperation shows through with this tack. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/168 "2004-10-19T23:42:03Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Bricker** , the fallacy in this continued tack of yours is that you assume the person who _should_ win is the person who _will_ win. No. Well, yes, I guess I do, but I don’t impute that feeling to you. If your argument is, “Kerry is better, but he may not win,” then I’ve got no beef with you (in the context of this argument, anyway). My beef is with the guy that says, “Oh, Kerry will absolutely win. No way he can’t win. He will win fer sure!” and is at the same time strangely reluctant to place any actual cash at risk. > [@Hentor](#): > > For you, for some reason, the following is true: > > being certain=willing to bet money > > and the converse appears to be true as well > > not willing to bet money=not being certain > > Do you really feel that these are entirely true? Why is that? Can you conceive of someone feeling certain about something but not wanting to bet money? Are you a pathological gambler? Not quite. I’d frame it as: “If you’re certain, my presumption is that you’re willing to bet money.” It’s a rebuttable presumption; all sorts of things can refute it: an aversion to gambling, not having spare cash, being married to someone with an aversion to gambling, and, I’m sure, other good reasons. But absent any rebuttal, yeah, I’d say that if you’re certain, it boggles my mind that you wouldn’t want to make a little extra spending money, especially because you can get such good odds on Kerry now. > [@](#): > > I think your desperation shows through with this tack. My desperation for what? Look, on November 3rd, one of us will have been proven wrong. (Or, if not on November 3rd, on January 20th, DEFINITELY one of us will have been proven wrong). I’m certain that you’ll be the guy making excuses. You claim that you’re equally certain I’ll be the guy making excuses. But from the limited evidence I see, your “certainty” extends only to making bold predictions on a message board. Mine extends that far, and to my wallet as well. If I’m wrong, that will definitely make me the bigger fool. If I’m right, that will, I contend, make you the bigger - hell, the ONLY - phony. - Rick ---
**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 19, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/169 "2004-10-19T23:59:24Z")
I am certain. Your logic on this matter appears to be limited. Your desperation is revealed in your need to assess and challenge my certainty. What difference does it make what my certainty level is, regardless of whether I “rebut” your presumptions about wagering? It shouldn’t, if you were confident in your belief. ---
**Author:** ![WernhamHogg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a587f6/32.png) [@WernhamHogg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WernhamHogg)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/170 "2004-10-20T00:00:26Z")
> [@antechinus](#): > > 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. It’s a common misunderstanding that betting reflects a likely outcome because the bookies “know.” The lines are determined by one thing: betting. That only indicates that more people are betting on Bush. ---
**Author:** ![WernhamHogg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a587f6/32.png) [@WernhamHogg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WernhamHogg)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/171 "2004-10-20T00:06:56Z")
My prediction has been, and remains, that Kerry will win decisively with a margin of around 100 electoral votes. ---
**Author:** ![DMark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@DMark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMark)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/172 "2004-10-20T00:17:15Z")
For the first time, Nevada has more registered Democrats, than Republicans. Early voting in Nevada began on Saturday, and so far the turnout is already double that of the last Presidential election. In looking at the voting numbers so far, I noticed that one of the largest turnouts at this early stage is at a mall very near a predominantly black neighborhood. My prediction is that Nevada is going for Kerry. My predicition for the election is that Kerry will win by a larger margin than expected, and even a few of the so-called Red States will have smaller than expected Bush margins of victory. Afterwards, the pollsters will be doing their own “spin” as to how they weren’t wrong, it was the voting public’s fault for invalidating their predictions. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/173 "2004-10-20T00:40:10Z")
> [@skutir](#): > > It’s a common misunderstanding that betting reflects a likely outcome because the bookies “know.” The lines are determined by one thing: betting. That only indicates that more people are betting on Bush. Right. What a bookie tries to do is set the odds so that an equal amount will be bet on either side. That way he can pay the winners with the money of the losers, with negligable financial risk to himself. These odds may just reflect that Republicans have lots of money to bet, and are putting it on Bush as wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/174 "2004-10-20T01:22:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not quite. I’d frame it as: “If you’re certain, my presumption is that you’re willing to bet money.” It’s a rebuttable presumption; all sorts of things can refute it: an aversion to gambling, not having spare cash, being married to someone with an aversion to gambling, and, I’m sure, other good reasons. But absent any rebuttal, yeah, I’d say that if you’re certain, it boggles my mind that you wouldn’t want to make a little extra spending money, especially because you can get such good odds on Kerry now. I’m not sure I agree with this, Rick. Certainly some people are betting types and some are not. I learned early that in the Washington journalism circles one can bet on almost anything. It cheeses Lady Chance off something fierce. Nonetheless, as you and I, the first two to have something riding on this outcome, you should know that I didn’t bet on ‘Kerry’ or whatnot. I bet the odds as I saw them. I saw a President who was, at the time, fairly popular but that popularity was soft. I figured there would be a certain level of overconfidence on the part of the administration and that, with the 2000 election going as it did, there was no WAY this (2004) wasn’t going to be a dogfight of epic proportions. This for certain wasn’t going to be one of those ‘over in August’ type of campaigns. I admit, I made the bet hoping for a Bush-Gore rematch because that would have been GREAT political theater. It would have had everything except (maybe) Gore ripping off his shirt and offering to wrestle Bush on the White House lawn all to the tune of ‘THIEF! You have stolen what is mine! Vengeance is here!’ and such. But I stand by my prediction that this sucker is close and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. ---
**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 20, 2004, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/175 "2004-10-20T01:45:33Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > But I stand by my prediction that this sucker is close and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Well, alrighty then! I like you very much too. ---
**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 20, 2004, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/176 "2004-10-20T02:26:38Z")
Minor hijack: > [@](#): > > Right. What a bookie tries to do is set the odds so that an equal amount will be bet on either side. That way he can pay the winners with the money of the losers, with negligable financial risk to himself. These odds may just reflect that Republicans have lots of money to bet, and are putting it on Bush as wishful thinking. This is only true to a certain extent. If a bookie thinks the public is wrong, he can and will let the sides be unbalanced - in essence placing a wager himself. This is common. Another reason why the bookie won’t just move the lines until they balance is because if the line moves too far from what he believes the ‘true’ odds are, he opens himself to being ‘middled’. That is when two lines are way out of whack, and sophisticated bettors can place offsetting bets and guarantee themselves at least a break-even wager, with a big profit if the middle comes in. This allows them to wager large stacks of money. For these reasons, plus the fact that the public is a lot smarter when betting than most people would think, betting lines are historically very close to the ‘true’ odds. Professional sports bettors who try to beat the spread are lucky if they can manage to do more than a few percentage points better than average. Also, some of the online markets are not run by bookies, but are simple trading exchanges. The two most common are the [Iowa Electronic Markets](http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/) and [Tradesports](http://www.tradesports.com/). Both have markets running for the presidential election. The Iowa Electronic Market presidential price graph can be seen [Here](http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm). From the chart you can see that Kerry was essentially tied with Bush through the middle of July. Then there was a blip for Kerry after the Democratic convention which faded away almost immediately. Then there’s a huge surge for Bush during and after the Republican primary. After the first and second debates, the market started trending towards Kerry again, but then moved Bush’s direction again. It looks like the start of a trend back towards Kerry in the past couple of days, but we’ll have to see if that develops. I don’t see a historical graph on Tradesports, but right now a share on Bush is .58, and a share on Kerry is .41. One caveat about these markets is that they may be pretty thinly traded, so a large buy could skew the data. I can see them being open to statistical manipulation by deep pockets organizations, if they felt that moving the price on t here would have a political payoff. ---
**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, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/177 "2004-10-20T02:38:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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**? Sorry. Not a bettin’ man. Once in a great while I buy a lottery ticket on impulse. That’s as close as I like to get to gambling. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/178 "2004-10-20T02:52:27Z")
Recount. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/179 "2004-10-20T03:02:49Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > I am certain. Your logic on this matter appears to be limited. > > Your desperation is revealed in your need to assess and challenge my certainty. What difference does it make what my certainty level is, regardless of whether I “rebut” your presumptions about wagering? > > It shouldn’t, if you were confident in your belief. OK. Fair enough. See you on the 3rd. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032/180 "2004-10-20T13:58:58Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-in-the-home-stretch-election-predictions/269032.md?page=10)