Well, this makes for a lovely weekend news frenzy - Sex, drugs, republicans, Foley will be mentioned, Fundamentalists, meetings with Bush. Holy crap, is it Christams Morning, does Santa love me this much??
Really, can you think of a better story to suck up the media's attention and deliver a death blow to Republicans? If this guy had sex with Cheney that would about make it perfect.
Given the margin of error in these polls and the ~7% undecided in each race it looks like it is the ground game that is going to decide. Motivated voters + GOTV = the winner. I like our chances but the Republicans are going to dump big cach and big effort into the last 3 days - we've go to outwork them to split that undecided 60/40 or better for us and to turn out our voters. Most all the polls show this same thing. We CAN win but we need to work harder and smarter in the next two weeks.
Wow! Went to Graduate School at IU and even though the Bloomington area is liberal the rest of the state never struck me as being rock solid republican. Tax averse, pro business and socially slightly conservative but also independent, small town, and issue driven. More evidence that the 50 state strategy is paying dividends by paying attention to voters.
Thanks, excellent points. Is it possible that undecideds might not vote at all - ie discouraged conservative christian right? Of course that would not help Dems I'm just curious. It makes sense, though, that only someone who really wanted to vote Rep. but is stupefied by their problems could be left undecided at this point. Rats, would like to see a nice 75/25 break our way.
The undecided vote in most of these polls seems to be 4-10%. I can't imagine that the undecideds are going to break 50/50. They seem to be the most likely voters to be influenced by Foley/Corrutpion/Iraq etc. Many of you are much more familiar with the polling process and I would appreciate responses that help me make sense of what those undecideds really mean. My gut tells me 4% undecided means at least 3% for Dems this cycle but the voting patterns of America never cease to amaze. Thanks
Can an event that demonstrates the ineptitude of one's policies be the surprise? Indeed, what does it mean to say "for NK to have nuclear weapons is unacceptable" when they just set one off? I honestly can't figure out what they are trying to do.
When Solzenietsen(sp?) returned to Russia after the fall of communism and gave a series of lectures the audiences were generally stunned at the clarity of his speech and the beauty of his language. Russian had been so corrupted that just the way he spoke, not what he was saying, moved the hearers. I think many candidates could learn from this lesson.
Excellent and timely post given all of the comments from Hastert et. al. concerning Foley and the dicussions of the Iraq war.
If I were Rove I would be telling everyone we had a plan too. Indeed they do have a plan, a sophisticated and well coordinated get out the vote program combined with viscous smear tactics and a lot of money. I doubt will see anything positive for the republicans on the international front. Much more likely they will receive bad rather than good international news.
It seems the data on this questions is very thin and noisy and thus not meaningless just not strongly correlated. However, a few observations seem in order.
1) Bush is much more strongly identified with the Republican party than Clinton with the Democrats. Not that Bill wasn't a Dem, its just that he spent a lot of time on NAFTA and Welfare Reform etc.
2) The reason people dislike Bush - primarily the war and Katrina - are also strongly associated with the Republican party. So his dislike is representative of a general dislike of the Congress and republicans.
3) Really, though, lets face it. Bush in the high thirties, low forties is a dream come true - or a nightmare for the country.
I concur with all your comments but we are not exactly retreating. The Baghdad forces have been in "force protection mode" which means don't leave the green zone or we will get killed. This has been both a political decision, keep losses down, and a practical one, we don't have enough troops there to do anything else. But the situation is so out of hand now that we have to try something. Unfortunately this will mean more casualties all around: our soldiers will be killed but so will lots of Iraqis. Indeed given the seriousness of the situation expect to see our forces inflicting massive casualties. I think our leaders are also starting to get nervous about the Green Zone as recent fighting has occured just outside the walls and our forces have been unwilling or unable to do anything. For the record, I predict they will move in some of our best trained, most experienced troops perhaps two brigades who will go after Al Sadr. I see nothing good coming of this.
Well, we were waiting for the inevitable adjustment in the Gallup/Fox polls. Now they can say not that one week before the election they were off by 10 points but that the night before they were CLOSE TO ALL THE OTHER POLLS. I stress the latter point because I think many of the other polling organizations, Zogby in particular, have essentially admitted they are being conservative in their methodology. In other words, they are sticking very close to the 2000 data and saying, in essence, "If this were 2000 and the election were held today then . . .". This produces a very close outcome because the outcome in 2000 was very close. But many often then go on to say if voter turnout is higher, if registration is up, if young people vote, if . . . This is why, I argue Zogby polls are tied but Zogby himself has been predicting a Kerry win for a couple of weeks. Legitimate polling groups need to be accurate and defensible - not just accurate. So the conservative models are very defensible, but how accurate?? In short, I think a Kerry %50+ possible perhaps even likely and a handy electoral college count of 300+ also likely. In RETROSPECT all the firms can say "wow, look at that turnout - if we had only known". So, as always GOTV GOTV GOTV GOTV GOTG
I downloaded the PDF file from this poll and it looks very good. Unweighted Bush/Kerry tied at 47 - if undecideds break even 1/3/2/3 Kerry wins walking away. Weighted for voter turnout in 2000 Kerry wins by a nice margin. Assuming better turnout - which seems pretty damn likely - Kerry destroys bush in the Battleground states. Again, though, the headline is "It Can't get Any Closer . . .".
GOTV! GOTV! GOTV! and monitor those damn polling places.
The votes in battleground states are not independent events statistically speaking. If Kerry does well in one state it is likely he will do better than predicted in other states - converse also true. If your percentages are accurate then he actually has a rather larger chance of winning overall.