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: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
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.
Here is the scoop on newspaper endorsements from Reuters:
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:
And, here is the scoop from the Editor and Publisher website itself:
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.)
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.
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.
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 than the Republican one.
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.
The latest from Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 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 for analysis and discussion of polling issues.
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.
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.
