Election Odds

[© Tweed the Younger]

You two are just fantastic at imagery.

[agcatter]

hah, that's some image alright.

[opebo]

Its to the credit of this forum that 'turds' has been the most off-colour word I've read here!

About election odds - I had been confident of Bush's re-election, but last night something very subjective shook me.  I live overseas, and so don't have a very good grasp of how the 'man on the street' is feeling.  I called up my dad and talked for the first time in months.  He's a lifelong Republican, but seemed convinced Kerry had a very good chance to unseat Bush due to economic conditions and Iraq casualties.  Of course he's a very old man and a little out of touch - but it struck me as a bit shocking he had so little confidence!  
Has anyone observed either a major political shift or an increase in fatalism in their elderly parents?

[Sibboleth]

Old people are quite fatalistic.

BTW, Opebo, where do you live?

[opebo]

Old people are quite fatalistic.

BTW, Opebo, where do you live?

Thailand.  Its 75 degrees tonight!

[Sibboleth]

Centigrade or Farenheit?

[opebo]

Centigrade or Farenheit?

Hah!  I'm an American.

[Gustaf]

Centigrade or Farenheit?

Hah!  I'm an American.

Lol...75 degrees Celsius would be unsustainable. 75-32=43 43/9*5=23 degrees Celsius. That's not too bad, actually...

[NHPolitico]

Dean's in this until someone drags him down to the ground and stuffs him in a burlap sack, I guess.

This campaign has always defied conventional wisdom. Our extraordinary rise last year defied conventional wisdom—so did our fall in Iowa, and so did our comeback in New Hampshire after most pundits predicted Howard Dean was finished.

Conventional wisdom has been consistently wrong about this race.

So when conventional wisdom says a candidate must win somewhere on February 3, or that John Kerry will have wrapped up the nomination after fewer than 10% of the delegates have been chosen, we disagree.

Our goal for the next two and a half weeks is simple—become the last-standing alternative to John Kerry after the Wisconsin primary on February 17.

Why Wisconsin? First, it is a stand-alone primary where we believe we can run very strong. Second, it kicks off a two-week campaign for over 1,100 delegates on March 2, and the shift of the campaign that month to nearly every big state: California, New York, and Ohio on March 2, Texas and Florida on March 9, Illinois on March 16, and Pennsylvania on April 27.

In the meantime, Howard Dean is traveling to many of the February 3 states, sending surrogates—including Al Gore—to most, and conducting radio interviews in all. We believe that one or more of our major opponents will be eliminated that day, and that the others will fall by the wayside as our strength grows in the following days. As a result we have elected to not buy television advertisements in February 3 states, but instead direct our resources toward the February 7 and 8 contests in Michigan, Washington and Maine. We may not win any February 3 state, but even third place finishes will allow us to move forward, continue to amass delegates in Virginia and Tennessee on February 10, and then strongly challenge Kerry in Wisconsin.

Regardless of who takes first place in these states, we think that after Wisconsin we’ll get Kerry in the open field. Remember one crucial thing about the 2004 calendar—in previous years a front-runner or presumptive nominee would typically emerge after most of the states had voted and most of the delegates had been chosen. The final competitor to that candidate, even if he won late states, as many have done, has not been able to win a majority of delegates under any scenario.

This year is very different. The media and the party insiders will attempt to declare Kerry the winner on February 3 after fewer than 10% of the state delegates have been chosen. At that point Kerry himself will probably have claimed fewer than one third of the delegates he needs to win. They would like the campaign to be over before the voters of California, New York, Texas and nearly every other big state have spoken.

Democrats in Florida, who witnessed a perversion of democracy in November 2000, will not have a choice concerning the nominee if the media and the party insiders have their way.

We intend to make this campaign a choice. We alone of the remaining challengers to John Kerry are geared to the long haul—we’ve raised nearly $2 million in the week after Iowa, over $600,000 in the 48 hours since New Hampshire. No candidate—not even Kerry, who mortgaged his house and tapped his personal fortune to funnel $7 million into his campaign —will have sufficient funds to advertise in all, or even most, of the big states that fall on March 2 and beyond. At that point paid advertising becomes much less of a factor.

And we alone of the remaining challengers offer a clear choice to Kerry. Howard Dean is no Johnny Come Lately to the message of change—he has actually delivered change in Vermont. Howard Dean has the courage and conviction to stand up for what’s right, even when it’s not politically popular, as opposed to the cautiousness, compromise and convenience that has characterized John Kerry’s 19 years in the Senate.

We believe that when the voters of the post-Wisconsin states—which constitute 75% of the delegates that will be chosen in the states—compare Howard Dean and John Kerry, they will conclude that Dean, not Kerry, has the best chance to beat George Bush, because only Dean offers a clear vision of change and a record of results that contrasts against the rhetoric emanating from Washington. We believe they will increasingly reject the rubber stamp presented to them by the media.

Has such a strategy ever worked before?

No. It's never been tried.

But prior to this year, no candidate had ever raised $46 million dollars, mostly from ordinary Americans giving $100 each. Prior to this year no candidate for President had ever inspired the kind of grass-roots activity that has been this campaign’s hallmark. Prior to this year no candidate for President had so clearly revitalized his party, allowed it to reclaim its voice, and shifted the agenda so clearly to a call for change.

Let the conventional wisdom and the media declare this race over. We’re going to let the people decide.

-- Roy Neel Chief Executive Officer Dean for America

[Nym90]

I'd say this race is a real toss-up. Bush has some strengths, but also some real weaknesses too. It'll be a close race, I'd be shocked if Bush wins by more than 5% or loses by more than 2%. Realistically I see no conceivable scenario in which Bush could win by more than 10% or lose by more than 5%. Recent polling, all of these taken in January, seems to suggest this as well...

Newsweek
Kerry 48
Bush 46

Newsweek--would you like to see Bush reelected?
No 49
Yes 45

American Research Group
Kerry 47
Bush 46
Among Independents, it's Kerry 55, Bush 39....

Quinnipiac University
Bush 49
Kerry 45
 
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
Bush 43
Democrat 39

Bush 49
Kerry 42

ABC/Washington Post
Bush 48
Kerry 46

Zogby
Democrat 45
Bush 41

Zogby--Bush deserves reelection or time for someone new?
Someone new 48
Deserves reelection 41

Democracy Corps

Bush 49
Democrat 45

Time/CNN--likely to vote for Bush?
Very/Somewhat likely 49
Very/Somewhat unlikely 48
Very unlikely beats very likely 36-30....

CBS/New York Times
Democrat 45
Bush 43

Also, Newsweek has Bush's approval rating down to 49% now.

So anyone saying that Bush is a shoo-in is completely ignorant of reality at this point in the race. Certainly, one can predict a strong Bush win, but at this point in time, all evidence suggests that the nation is evenly split. Thus, any prediction of a solid Bush win means that you are saying that people will change their minds and vote for Bush.
And all available evidence suggests that Kerry is the strongest possible Democratic nominee, as all recent polls which test Bush against any of the 5 serious Democrats always show Kerry as running strongest against Bush.

And no, incumbent presidents don't always trail at this point in the race. Clinton and Reagan both led continuously throughout the entire election year in head to head matchups against the eventual opposing nominee. I'd say Bush's chances are worse than Clinton's or Reagan's, but better than Carter's or Bush 41's. In other words, it's going to be really close.

[Sibboleth]

It's going to be very close again... and I think there might be more upsets than usual (in the EC, in the House and probably in the Senate) due to the anti-incumbency that seems to be floating around at the moment...

It'll be good TV!

[opebo]

It's going to be very close again... and I think there might be more upsets than usual (in the EC, in the House and probably in the Senate) due to the anti-incumbency that seems to be floating around at the moment...

It'll be good TV!

Yikes, upsets in the Senate!   I'm not worried about the House, but if Bush goes down we need both House and Senate to control whatever Democrat gets in.  Actually I'm not that worried about the Senate either - though if Bush loses we can't afford to lose even one senator net.

[opebo]

I'd say this race is a real toss-up. Bush has some strengths, but also some real weaknesses too. It'll be a close race, I'd be shocked if Bush wins by more than 5% or loses by more than 2%. Realistically I see no conceivable scenario in which Bush could win by more than 10% or lose by more than 5%. Recent polling, all of these taken in January, seems to suggest this as well...

Newsweek
Kerry 48
Bush 46

Newsweek--would you like to see Bush reelected?
No 49
Yes 45

American Research Group
Kerry 47
Bush 46
Among Independents, it's Kerry 55, Bush 39....

Quinnipiac University
Bush 49
Kerry 45
 
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
Bush 43
Democrat 39

Bush 49
Kerry 42

ABC/Washington Post
Bush 48
Kerry 46

Zogby
Democrat 45
Bush 41

Zogby--Bush deserves reelection or time for someone new?
Someone new 48
Deserves reelection 41

Democracy Corps

Bush 49
Democrat 45

Time/CNN--likely to vote for Bush?
Very/Somewhat likely 49
Very/Somewhat unlikely 48
Very unlikely beats very likely 36-30....

CBS/New York Times
Democrat 45
Bush 43

Also, Newsweek has Bush's approval rating down to 49% now.

So anyone saying that Bush is a shoo-in is completely ignorant of reality at this point in the race. Certainly, one can predict a strong Bush win, but at this point in time, all evidence suggests that the nation is evenly split. Thus, any prediction of a solid Bush win means that you are saying that people will change their minds and vote for Bush.
And all available evidence suggests that Kerry is the strongest possible Democratic nominee, as all recent polls which test Bush against any of the 5 serious Democrats always show Kerry as running strongest against Bush.

And no, incumbent presidents don't always trail at this point in the race. Clinton and Reagan both led continuously throughout the entire election year in head to head matchups against the eventual opposing nominee. I'd say Bush's chances are worse than Clinton's or Reagan's, but better than Carter's or Bush 41's. In other words, it's going to be really close.

I agree its going to be awfully close, as these polls suggest - though it is early.  I can't actually identify why Bush's popularity would've gone down in January, other than the attention drawn by the Democratic primary and the fact that he hasn't begun compaigning.   I'm really hoping money can make the difference this time around.

The one thing I do pin my hopes on is I don't see how Bush is likely to do any worse than he did in 2000.  I think the people who voted Bush in 2000 represent a kind of very likely Republican core vote.  Given the changes in the electoral college caused by the Census, Bush could lose NH, lose an even bigger percentage of the vote in the Gore states, and just gain about a hundred thousand votes net in Florida to make up for the Nader factor (FL was the only state where Nader mattered), and he holds.  I could actually see Bush winning again with a slightly lower percentage of the popular vote.

[Sibboleth]

There's always at least one upset in the Senate every election.
The problem is spotting it...

[Reaganfan]

Remember, your seeing more of the Democrats in the news since it is the primaries. Bush is doing well. As seen on my map, I predict a landslide.

[Nym90]

I don't think that the Republican core vote comprises 48% of the vote nationally. A lot of people voted for Bush thinking that he would be a centrist and have been disappointed. Both parties have about 40% of the vote as a core vote, with another 5% or so which strongly lean their way, and then about 10% of the electorate which is true swing voters.

[opebo]

I don't think that the Republican core vote comprises 48% of the vote nationally. A lot of people voted for Bush thinking that he would be a centrist and have been disappointed. Both parties have about 40% of the vote as a core vote, with another 5% or so which strongly lean their way, and then about 10% of the electorate which is true swing voters.

I don't agree.  I think 2000 was a polarizing election under the surface.  There was absolutely no reason to vote for Bush unless you simply preferred Republicans.  Times were good, etc etc.  So I see that 47.9% as being extremely likely to go for Bush again.  I have yet to run into a passionate moderate who's upset that Bush takes principled stands.  I think presidents are far more likely to get unseated for being too moderate (Bush Sr.) than too extreme.

[Gustaf]

I'd say this race is a real toss-up. Bush has some strengths, but also some real weaknesses too. It'll be a close race, I'd be shocked if Bush wins by more than 5% or loses by more than 2%. Realistically I see no conceivable scenario in which Bush could win by more than 10% or lose by more than 5%. Recent polling, all of these taken in January, seems to suggest this as well...

Newsweek
Kerry 48
Bush 46

Newsweek--would you like to see Bush reelected?
No 49
Yes 45

American Research Group
Kerry 47
Bush 46
Among Independents, it's Kerry 55, Bush 39....

Quinnipiac University
Bush 49
Kerry 45
 
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
Bush 43
Democrat 39

Bush 49
Kerry 42

ABC/Washington Post
Bush 48
Kerry 46

Zogby
Democrat 45
Bush 41

Zogby--Bush deserves reelection or time for someone new?
Someone new 48
Deserves reelection 41

Democracy Corps

Bush 49
Democrat 45

Time/CNN--likely to vote for Bush?
Very/Somewhat likely 49
Very/Somewhat unlikely 48
Very unlikely beats very likely 36-30....

CBS/New York Times
Democrat 45
Bush 43

Also, Newsweek has Bush's approval rating down to 49% now.

So anyone saying that Bush is a shoo-in is completely ignorant of reality at this point in the race. Certainly, one can predict a strong Bush win, but at this point in time, all evidence suggests that the nation is evenly split. Thus, any prediction of a solid Bush win means that you are saying that people will change their minds and vote for Bush.
And all available evidence suggests that Kerry is the strongest possible Democratic nominee, as all recent polls which test Bush against any of the 5 serious Democrats always show Kerry as running strongest against Bush.

And no, incumbent presidents don't always trail at this point in the race. Clinton and Reagan both led continuously throughout the entire election year in head to head matchups against the eventual opposing nominee. I'd say Bush's chances are worse than Clinton's or Reagan's, but better than Carter's or Bush 41's. In other words, it's going to be really close.

I agree its going to be awfully close, as these polls suggest - though it is early.  I can't actually identify why Bush's popularity would've gone down in January, other than the attention drawn by the Democratic primary and the fact that he hasn't begun compaigning.   I'm really hoping money can make the difference this time around.

The one thing I do pin my hopes on is I don't see how Bush is likely to do any worse than he did in 2000.  I think the people who voted Bush in 2000 represent a kind of very likely Republican core vote.  Given the changes in the electoral college caused by the Census, Bush could lose NH, lose an even bigger percentage of the vote in the Gore states, and just gain about a hundred thousand votes net in Florida to make up for the Nader factor (FL was the only state where Nader mattered), and he holds.  I could actually see Bush winning again with a slightly lower percentage of the popular vote.

Didn't Nader matter in NH as well?

[nclib]

I'd say this race is a real toss-up. Bush has some strengths, but also some real weaknesses too. It'll be a close race, I'd be shocked if Bush wins by more than 5% or loses by more than 2%. Realistically I see no conceivable scenario in which Bush could win by more than 10% or lose by more than 5%. Recent polling, all of these taken in January, seems to suggest this as well...

Newsweek
Kerry 48
Bush 46

Newsweek--would you like to see Bush reelected?
No 49
Yes 45

American Research Group
Kerry 47
Bush 46
Among Independents, it's Kerry 55, Bush 39....

Quinnipiac University
Bush 49
Kerry 45
 
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
Bush 43
Democrat 39

Bush 49
Kerry 42

ABC/Washington Post
Bush 48
Kerry 46

Zogby
Democrat 45
Bush 41

Zogby--Bush deserves reelection or time for someone new?
Someone new 48
Deserves reelection 41

Democracy Corps

Bush 49
Democrat 45

Time/CNN--likely to vote for Bush?
Very/Somewhat likely 49
Very/Somewhat unlikely 48
Very unlikely beats very likely 36-30....

CBS/New York Times
Democrat 45
Bush 43

Also, Newsweek has Bush's approval rating down to 49% now.

So anyone saying that Bush is a shoo-in is completely ignorant of reality at this point in the race. Certainly, one can predict a strong Bush win, but at this point in time, all evidence suggests that the nation is evenly split. Thus, any prediction of a solid Bush win means that you are saying that people will change their minds and vote for Bush.
And all available evidence suggests that Kerry is the strongest possible Democratic nominee, as all recent polls which test Bush against any of the 5 serious Democrats always show Kerry as running strongest against Bush.

And no, incumbent presidents don't always trail at this point in the race. Clinton and Reagan both led continuously throughout the entire election year in head to head matchups against the eventual opposing nominee. I'd say Bush's chances are worse than Clinton's or Reagan's, but better than Carter's or Bush 41's. In other words, it's going to be really close.

I agree its going to be awfully close, as these polls suggest - though it is early.  I can't actually identify why Bush's popularity would've gone down in January, other than the attention drawn by the Democratic primary and the fact that he hasn't begun compaigning.   I'm really hoping money can make the difference this time around.

The one thing I do pin my hopes on is I don't see how Bush is likely to do any worse than he did in 2000.  I think the people who voted Bush in 2000 represent a kind of very likely Republican core vote.  Given the changes in the electoral college caused by the Census, Bush could lose NH, lose an even bigger percentage of the vote in the Gore states, and just gain about a hundred thousand votes net in Florida to make up for the Nader factor (FL was the only state where Nader mattered), and he holds.  I could actually see Bush winning again with a slightly lower percentage of the popular vote.

Didn't Nader matter in NH as well?

One can't assume that ALL of Nader's votes would still have voted and voted for Gore, but yes Gore + Nader would only have mattered in FL and NH.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Bush v. Kerry won't be close, Bush will win hands down.

[opebo]

Didn't Nader matter in NH as well?

Yes, Gustaf, but NH is totally expendable.  I'm saying Bush could win with every state he won in 2000 minus New Hampshire.  Not that I think he'll lose NH but the point is he can get the same votes he got in 2000 plus a few more in Florida, while getting even less votes in 'Gore States'.  In other words his net vote percentage could actually be lower due to polarization and unpopularity in the Northeast and West Coast, and yet still win reelection!  That would be cool stuff!

[Gustaf]

Didn't Nader matter in NH as well?

Yes, Gustaf, but NH is totally expendable.  I'm saying Bush could win with every state he won in 2000 minus New Hampshire.  Not that I think he'll lose NH but the point is he can get the same votes he got in 2000 plus a few more in Florida, while getting even less votes in 'Gore States'.  In other words his net vote percentage could actually be lower due to polarization and unpopularity in the Northeast and West Coast, and yet still win reelection!  That would be cool stuff!

OK, I was just checking.

[© Tweed the Younger]

02.16.04

260 days before election day, I will lowere Bush's chances of re-election from 65% to 50%.  If edwards was the nominee it would be 25%, but oh well.

[sgpine]

Here's the line people are betting money on for today:

Betting on Bush to lose = Bush gets 63.1% chance of winning.

Betting on Bush to win = Bush gets 65.0% chance of winning.

These are the about levels the lines have been at for most of the last year.

Right before the Iraq war was Bush's lowest levels, at about 58%. That leveled off to about 65%, and then he got a big surge at the end of 2003, peaking around 75%. Since the beginning of the year he's been on a slow decline, however.

[© Tweed the Younger]

02.16.04

260 days before election day, I will lowere Bush's chances of re-election from 65% to 50%.  If edwards was the nominee it would be 25%, but oh well.

4.8.04

208 days before election day, I raise Bush's chances of re-election from 50% to 55%.  Bush is looking like a fairly weak candidate, but Kerry's Massachusettsism will ultimately mean a Bush second term.