If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

No I really don't have any better. I've just been listening to the hype and watching the AOL straw poll - None have given Edwards the edge and most come down on Cheney's side (Fox, CNN, ABC news etc.) but done scientifically, it may shake out differently.

These same kinds of early judgments were strongly on the side of Kerry in the previous debate.

Rasmussen has shown a slight, but (to ever stable Rasmussen standards) significant downward shift in Bush's margin over Kerry over the past few days, by the way. Bush maxed on 3 October with a 3,6% lead over Kerry, which shrunk to 2,5% on Monday, 0,9% on Tuesday and 0,3% today. As Daly never tires of noting, when movement in a tracking poll is gradual rather than spiked there is a greater chance of it being real rather than just random chance. So let us hope.

Talking of Daly, he's had to shift a number of states in his Electoral College designations today, as a bunch of SurveyUSA polls and some others appeared. Of the 12 states polls appeared for today, six stayed in the same category, six moved up a designation in Kerry's favour, and none moved towards Bush. They include NM and PA moving from tossup to slight Kerry, and IA and OH moving from slight Bush to tossup.

I don't often note state shifts here, too many of 'em. But six in one day, especially in Daly's usually very cautious approach, is quite an event. Overall he still has Bush in the lead though: 268 to 233.

Electoral-Vote.com is getting more and more blue with every passing day.

Compare the last week, and the week before that, to today and you'll see just how apparent it is. Can't wait for another debate to happen - we'll see if Kerry can keep his momentum going.

Did Bush peak too early?

Cycloptichorn

Anyway to check the sharper shifts in the numbers against the price of oil Nimh? I've also been watcing the consumer and investment confidence levels that seem to be based strictly on sudden shifts in the oil prices. I wonder if that is also in part driving the polls?

Democracy Corps has a poll out on the debate:

- 40% thought Cheney had won,
- 37% thought Edwards had won.

For a whopping 25% gender gap,

- Men preferred Cheney, 47% to 31%,
- Women preferred Edwards, 43% to 34%.

The (Democrat) pollster hopefully notes that

- Among independents, Edwards led by 37 to 34%,
- Among undecided voters (with only 60 cases), Edwards won by 43 to 25 %.

60 cases is an awfully precarious sample, but the outcome of Edwards winning among the undecideds while losing among the general viewership does echo the contrast between the ABC/WaPo and CBS polls.

Before I forget, Dem. Corps also has a national poll out according to Daly (cant find it back on the DC site):

Bush 48% (-1)
Kerry 49% (+3)

I share that suspicion, Fox.

Individual issue polls? I'm sure they are hard to find reliably...

Cycloptichorn

Could be Fox, I must admit I'm no expert on that though, havent got a clue what oil prices are over there!

Heeey! Overlooked this bit of trivia, which I'll post purely to please and inspire Sozobe:

"The biggest change came in central Ohio, where Bush had been leading by twenty but now leads by just three (although one should keep in mind that the subsample size would lead to a much higher margin of error)."

Thanks nimh

The word "lie" is being used rather indiscriminately on this thread.

One can deceitfully list or select accurately reported facts and logical propositions assembled in a way to deceive the listener. Is this a lie?

One can incorrectly report facts in an argument intended to convey truth and full, right understanding. Is this a lie?

One can also select self-serving narrow interpretations of another's statement and deduce inconsistencies. Does this make the original statement a lie? Does one who knowingly misinterprets another's statement to create the perception of inconsistency, also lie?

There is also the question of the significance or importance of the fact or idea in question. One can easily be mistaken in some inconsequential detail of a more complex proposition or argument. Does that make it a lie? One can also exploit such a trivial inconsistency to falsely create the impression that the central idea is wrong. Is this a lie?

Finally one can indulge in assertions about what he or she will do or accomplish that have no foundation in either likely reality or what the speaker is able to accomplish. Is this a lie?

I don't think there is much real merit in playing got'cha games with the details of what is said in such debates, unless the details themselves are what is significant. The weight and significance of any such deception is determined by the consequence of the issue and the likely motive or intent of the speaker.

On these bases, I believe Kerry is, by a wide margin, the champion liar in the current campaign.

And so you would, George, and so you would.

Foxfyre recently asked if there was any other daily tracking poll aside from Rasmussen; as far as I know, there wasn't. But the Washington Post started one; they're now in their third day.

The graph is in Flash, so I can't paste it in here, but here's the tracking poll homepage.

Today (statistical noise or effect of the veep debate?), they have Kerry +2% and Bush -2%, but Bush still in the lead by 49% to 47%. Nader's at 1%.

I'd like to see Nader disappear from the graph from 1% to zero or minus 1%.

Ooh, nice trivia there!

I'm heading over to Kerry central in a few minutes, will tell 'em.

Go, Soz. go.

They were psyched. :-)

These guys are pretty darn cool. Lots of energy there. One person I just talked to said this is the first time she's done anything like this -- worked on any campaign, ever. But she's not just dabbling, she's doing a ton of stuff.

I do observe, though, that you're not defending any of Cheney's specific lies that nimh and I have listed in our replies to you. I also observe that your list of dishonest tactics doesn't contain an item saying something like: "You can fire your top staffers for the sole transgression of telling the truth to you (Lindsey, Shinesky (sp?)), thereby creating a work environment for your administration where reality drowns in a flood of 'yessir' requirements." You once said, in an entirely different context, how important you find it as an executive to surround yourself with smart people who tend to disagree with you. You must have registered Mr. Bush's determination to do the opposite, and I'd be surprised if you approved of it. Having observed all this, it appears to me that in your heart of hearts, you don't trust this administration anymore either; but that you're evading this thought because they're on your side, and you want to trust them. Needless to say, I could be wrong.


Is it just me, or is this really the one presidential election in my adult life where crowds of Americans say such things? "This is the first time ever that I do ______", with the blank filled out with some form of political activism. It's even carrying over to Germany. Here in Munich for example, we have several foreign language cinemas which mostly show American movies. This is the first election ever, since I came here in 1989, that I see American activists at the exits of those cinemas, registering American expatriates to vote. This is the first election ever where I myself am donating money to a political campaign. (No price for guessing which ) The list seems to go on and on, and I don't remember this happening in any previous election. But maybe that's just my senility setting in.

This is an election like no other in my lifetime, Thomas.

MY GUESS: Senility may be setting in for both of us...but that ain't the reason we feel as we do about this issue.

My guess is that these now awakened voters who are registering to vote in numbers not seen in many years are going to be the deciding factor. A deciding factor that sends the present occupant of the White house back to Crawford Texas.

I sure hope so, au. I've been thinking about that, too, and especially whether pollsters are adequately taking that into consideration. Wouldn't a Kerry landslide be amazing? In this age of polls upon polls and maps and prognostications and 3% margin of error...

That'd be great.

A gal can dream.