2
   

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

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 05:54 pm
nimh wrote:
What does it all mean?

It means the polls are more valuable if they're more exciting! Razz The casino hasn't budged in a week 7 to 4 Bush. Although, Kerry did make up a little ground in Florida today and is now at 7 to 5 (was 7 to 4). Smart money isn't on Kerry... at least not "straight up". :wink:
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:02 pm
I don't make a new thread and maybe it's not mentioned until now:

In first political endorsement in its history, The New Yorker backs Kerry

Quote:
The New Yorker has made the first political endorsement in its 80-year history, backing U.S. Sen. John Kerry in next week's presidential election.

The magazine says the Bush administration's record "has been one of failure, arrogance, and _ strikingly for a team that prided itself on crisp professionalism _ incompetence" and that Kerry "has demonstrated steadiness and sturdiness of character" throughout his career.

The five-page editorial in the Nov. 1 issue criticizes President Bush's tax cuts, his environmental policies, his execution of the war in Iraq and his Justice Department's record of "secrecy and arrogance."

On the environment, the magazine says, "By stripping away restrictions on the use of federal lands, often through little-advertised rule changes, the administration has potentially opened up 60 million acres, an area larger than Indiana and Iowa combined, to logging, mining and oil exploration."

Of Iraq it says that "the cakewalk led over a cliff, to a succession of heedless and disastrous mistakes that leave one wondering, at the very least, how the Pentagon's civilian leadership remains intact and the president's sense of infallibility undisturbed."

"In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush's curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery," The New Yorker says.

The editorial criticizes Kerry for an "uneven" performance on the stump and says, "He can be cautious to a fault, overeager to acknowledge every angle of an issue; and his reluctance to expose the administration's appalling record bluntly and relentlessly until very late in the race was a missed opportunity." But it adds, "He is plainly the better choice."

Asked why the magazine was endorsing a candidate for the first time, spokeswoman Perri Dorset said, "We believe this is a very critical election and an important time in our country and we decided we want to make a statement about it."


Source



The complete New Yorker article
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:03 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I really doubt there is, or will be, any momentum shift [..]. The Friday-Saturday releases this weekend, being all week-day samples, will prolly show a fairly evenly distributed 3-to-5 point Bush lead.

Why do you think 3-5% if you don't think there'll be a momentum shift, Timber? Because it's not 3-5% now ...

These are the latest spreads from the past week (so: the spread in the latest poll that was done during the past week for each pollster, 3-way and LV where available):

TIPP: Bush +8 (trend towards Bush)
Fox: Bush +7 (trend towards Bush)
Gallup: Bush +5 (trend towards Kerry)
Time: Bush +5 (trend towards Bush)
Battleground: Bush +4 (trend towards Bush)
Zogby: Bush +3 (trend towards Bush)
Newsweek: Bush +2 (trend towards Kerry)
Marist: Bush +1 (trend towards Kerry)
ABC & WaPo: Kerry +1 (trend towards Kerry)
Economist: Kerry +2 (trend towards Kerry)
Rasmussen: Kerry +2 (trend towards Kerry)
Dem Corps: Kerry +2 (trend towards Bush)
AP/Ipsos: Kerry +3 (trend towards Bush)

Average: Bush + 1,9%
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:05 pm
Hey, what do you people think? Rehnquist's hospitalisation, will that bring the issue of the new President being likely to appoint new SC judges back into the consideration for voters?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:19 pm
No, Nimh. Us political junkies know that there will be one, two, three perhaps even four Supreme Court justices dying/retiring in the next presidential cycle (four/eight years) It's not something that is talked about amongst the general population. We expect that our Supreme Court will remain independent, balanced and reasonable. There is a certain naivete there. -johnboy-
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:21 pm
No, he is ultra conservative and a ruggedised judge. He will come back soon.
Which will Kerry choose?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:22 pm
Yes it will energize committed voters on both sides. Hard to say what the net effect might be.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 06:43 pm
Na, RJB is pretty much right. Those that care, have mostly made up their minds with that in mind anyway.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:12 pm
I don't see a 3-to-5 point Bush lead as any sort of momentum shift, nimh, I see it as where the momentum is going. Its also right where RCP puts it, and so does CNN's "Poll of the Polls"
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:28 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I don't see a 3-to-5 point Bush lead as any sort of momentum shift, nimh, I see it as where the momentum is going. Its also right where RCP puts it

Actually it has it barely at 3,1%, so you're still extrapolating upwards even if you use the RCP numbers - hence my question about what momentum you expect.

Also, the RCP average excludes the latest Rasmussen (which has Kerry up, but is a 2-way race poll), as well as the Democracy Corps poll of last week (which has Kerry up) and the Economist poll of last week (which has Kerry up).

Conversely, the list I posted above which gets you an average Bush lead of only 1,9% does include all the polls RCP lists.

(I've really been wondering why the RCP average is consistently better for Bush than what I come up with. I'm going to keep a watchful eye out. Last time I did the comparison, I also noted that it had not listed Dem Corps and Economist (and of course not the two-way Rasmussen one) - plus that it listed two subsequent tracking polls of ABC/WaPo, which then was very Bush-friendly, when it normally only lists the last of a tracking poll's numbers. Could have been an oversight - forgot to take the older one out. But like I said, they do consistently have the Bush lead larger than what I come up with, so I'm starting to be a little watchful of what oversights and omissions cause that.)

(The CNN poll of polls you linked in also has had the Bush lead at exactly 3% for three days now - and (the last one) is based on just five polls.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:39 pm
Yay New Yorker!

The Rehnquist thing could just possibly have an effect on pro-choice women... I seem to remember single women as being a major demographic player this year, and they seem likely, as a group, to trend pro-choice. Some of them may have known about the whole thing as a general concept but the idea of hey this guy's 80 and he has cancer and he's in the hospital -- could possibly give 'em a jolt.

Not something I feel strongly about, but seems somewhat plausible.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:40 pm
Yay New Yorker!

The Rehnquist thing could just possibly have an effect on pro-choice women... I seem to remember single women as being a major demographic player this year, and they seem likely, as a group, to trend pro-choice. Some of them may have known about the whole thing as a general concept but the idea of hey this guy's 80 and he has cancer and he's in the hospital -- could possibly give 'em a jolt.

Not something I feel strongly about, but seems somewhat plausible.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:41 pm
Well, A Poll with a near-50-year record of correctly picking the winner is just out ... and, apart from A Typically Sophomoric Abberation, it doesn't look bad for The Incumbent. Laughing Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:43 pm
Post above corrected for erroneous Rasmussen reference (which is a two-way race poll, so naturally doesn't appear in the RCP graph).

Does anyone else have trouble editing posts, by the way? If I click to open a thread or go from one A2K page to another, it takes a second at most. Posting a new reply doesn't take much longer. But if I edit a post, it takes forever before it goes through, it seems ever longer in fact. Isn't that weird? Is it just me?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:43 pm
Damn, Soz ... gotta wonder ... if ya did reel strongly about it, do ya think ya might have hammered the point a bit harder? :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:44 pm
Post above corrected for erroneous Rasmussen reference (which is a two-way race poll, so naturally doesn't appear in the RCP graph).

Does anyone else have trouble editing posts, by the way? If I click to open a thread or go from one A2K page to another, it takes a second at most. Posting a new reply already takes longer. But if I edit a post, it positively takes forever before it goes through, ever longer in fact, it seems. Isn't that weird? Is it just me?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:45 pm
Yeah, the site's slow tonight.

Editing has been taking longer and longer as the site grows bigger, I have a vague recollection of Craven saying (but don't quote me on it.)

Obviously, hiccups as well. Sorry for duplicates.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:48 pm
I just heard an interesting (unconfirmed) statistic on our local radio station.

In every election dating back to the mid 1930's, if the Washington Redskins lose their last home game before the election, the incumbant loses. if the Redkins win, the incumbant wins.

The Redskins play the Packers in Washington on Sunday.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:48 pm
It seems the site is a little quirky tonight, nimh ... mebbe CdK is teasin' the hamsters or somethin'.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Oct, 2004 07:50 pm
As if I wasn't already fervently collecting all mojo for the Packers to win!!

Oh my.

I haveta get my F-I-L to give me condolences in advance for a Packers loss again. (He's a Cowboys fan, did that before the game yesterday. Hah!)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oz fest 2004 - Question by Love2is0evol
Human Events Names Man of the Year, 2004 - Discussion by gungasnake
Your 2004 mix tape - Discussion by boomerang
BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE... - Discussion by Frank Apisa
Weeping and gnashing of teeth - Discussion by FreeDuck
WOW! Why Andrew Sullivan is supporting John Kerry - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Margarate Hassan - hostage in Iraq - Discussion by msolga
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/25/2024 at 10:33:18