Which state was the most surprising?

[MasterJedi]

Wisconsin, I saw all the Bush signs in the areas where he needed to win big but it didn't happen. Oh well what's over is over and he won.

[Democratic Hawk]

West Virginia - not staying with Bush but the extent to which it swung against Kerry. He was just too liberal for that states tastes

Dave

[PBrunsel]

Well I was quit glad the "Curse of the Dukakis" was off of Iowa. If it stays off is the only question for it now.

[Cashcow]

Well I was quit glad the "Curse of the Dukakis" was off of Iowa. If it stays off is the only question for it now.

You have an interesting prediction map.

[Cubby]

I didn't understand why of the 3 Dukakis states, 2 went stronger to Kerry and one flipped to Bush. My best guess is the few Nader '00 voters in the first 2 switched to Kerry, while Nader did less well in Iowa '00.

I agree with everyone else that Wisconsin was a surprise. I remember a poll on this site in Sept. or Oct. that had Bush with a 10 point lead.

Bad surprise: Bush doing noticably better in all of the Northeast except north New England. Terrorism/Security close to home was probably why. I had hoped that MA,CT and RI would have every county red like last time. Stupid Litchfield! The continued low turnout among my fellow young voters made me mad and depressed. Losing every single county in Oklahoma: ouch

Good Surprise: Dems doing better across the entire northern tier of the country, even in places like ND & ID (trend-wise, not actual results) And even in the south some good news: We won Fairfax, Mecklenburg (Charlotte, NC) and almost won Dallas!

I voted Wisconsin

[skybridge]

Wisconsin-the last polls seem to reach a consensus that it was in the bag for Bush

Florida-the last week saw wild swings for both candidates (+5 for Bush one day, +6 for Kerry the next) and I had predicted that the Sunshine State would be about +4 for Kerry

West Virginia-I predicted this would be about +3-4 for Bush but I never thought of a 12% margin there

I was just stunned that FL was so much for Bush. I went, "hey, how much did Jeb fix the machines" for the first few hours until settling down.

None of them were surprising at all. Maybe New Mexico but not even that result made my head spin.

[PBrunsel]

Well I was quit glad the "Curse of the Dukakis" was off of Iowa. If it stays off is the only question for it now.

You have an interesting prediction map.

Oh that? Just a joke. It was meant to slightly mock all those who followed the polls to a tee and used a magnifying glass to make sure the numbers were right. I did not take it seriously. Twas but a merry jest!

[skybridge]

The most disappointing was of course Ohio.

[Sam Spade]

Good Surprise: Dems doing better across the entire northern tier of the country, even in places like ND & ID (trend-wise, not actual results) And even in the south some good news: We won Fairfax, Mecklenburg (Charlotte, NC) and almost won Dallas!

Dallas County is not Dallas.  Only a certain area of Dallas County actually forms the city of Dallas and the city of Dallas is blocked by suburban municipalities on all sides.  About 50% of the population resides in the city of Dallas (1.2 million), the rest are in suburbs (1.2 million).  The Dallas-Fort Worth metro area (key term) is roughly 5.2 million and includes the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and its various and surrounding suburbs in Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County and Denton County.

The Dallas-Fort Worth metro area continues to produce roughly a 60%-40% Republican split in most Texas local and federal elections.  This election was no different.

The population of city of Dallas is stable, not growing or declining.  I would say demographically it's probably 1/3 black, 1/3rd white, 1/3 Hispanic (don't know for sure), but the blacks vote in extremely large numbers greater than the Hispanics, most of whom are not legal citizens.

There is no doubt in my mind that the city of Dallas voted strongly Democrat in 2004, as it has since 1988 at least, but as the City of Dallas only forms roughly only 1/20th of the Texas population and 1/10th of the actual vote, 1/5th of the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area and 1/4 of the actual vote and probably roughly 1/2 of Dallas County and its vote, it only affects the Texas totals so much.

[Cubby]

Good Surprise: Dems doing better across the entire northern tier of the country, even in places like ND & ID (trend-wise, not actual results) And even in the south some good news: We won Fairfax, Mecklenburg (Charlotte, NC) and almost won Dallas!

Dallas County is not Dallas.  Only a certain area of Dallas County actually forms the city of Dallas and the city of Dallas is blocked by suburban municipalities on all sides.  About 50% of the population resides in the city of Dallas (1.2 million), the rest are in suburbs (1.2 million).  The Dallas-Fort Worth metro area (key term) is roughly 5.2 million and includes the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth and its various and surrounding suburbs in Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County and Denton County.

The Dallas-Fort Worth metro area continues to produce roughly a 60%-40% Republican split in most Texas local and federal elections.  This election was no different.

The population of city of Dallas is stable, not growing or declining.  I would say demographically it's probably 1/3 black, 1/3rd white, 1/3 Hispanic (don't know for sure), but the blacks vote in extremely large numbers greater than the Hispanics, most of whom are not legal citizens.

There is no doubt in my mind that the city of Dallas voted strongly Democrat in 2004, as it has since 1988 at least, but as the City of Dallas only forms roughly only 1/20th of the Texas population and 1/10th of the actual vote, 1/5th of the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area and 1/4 of the actual vote and probably roughly 1/2 of Dallas County and its vote, it only affects the Texas totals so much.

Yes I am familiar with the Dallas-Ft. Worth metro area (or metroplex as I think they call it) and I know it had no impact on the Texas results as a whole. But since all of Dallas County almost voted Democrat, then even the suburbs such as Plano, Mesquite and Garland must have trended Democrat at least somewhat b/c these are county results, not city. If Dallas's population isn't growing as fast as the suburbs then since the trend was Democrat the change was also in the latter, not just downtown.

[Beet]

Rhode Island was the biggest surprise. Bush went from 32% to 39%, for what reason nobody knows.

[dazzleman]

I wasn't surprised by any state.  The 2004 election was pretty dull in that respect.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of those? WV. I got only one state wrong, and a lot of funny stuff happened in Ohio.

[The Vorlon]

I did pretty well actually.

The only state I just plain got wrong was Minnesota - I figured it was pretty darn close, it wasn't

Happy about Florida - I think I was just about the only person who from day one had Bush up 4-6 in Florida pretty much the whole way.

I got Iowa and Wisconsin "wrong" in that I called the wrong winner, but those weer just coin tosses that came up the wrong way. 

[Frodo]

At the time, Florida.  I would have thought that Democrats would have done everything in their power to use the 2000 backlash to their advantage and turn the state blue (red on Atlas).  So I was stunned to see that Bush actually won the state by a much larger margin than he did the first time around. 

[Vasall des Midas]

I did pretty well actually.

The only state I just plain got wrong was Minnesota - I figured it was pretty darn close, it wasn't

Yeah, I never understood how you came to such an obviously harebrained conclusion.

Happy about Florida - I think I was just about the only person who from day one had Bush up 4-6 in Florida pretty much the whole way.

From day one? Probably. It was becoming clear to me some months in, though. Much like Minnesota, really. In more ways than one - both states had freak result in 2000. Once the 2004 campaign was really shaping up, it should have been clear they'd be moving back towards normal.

I got Iowa and Wisconsin "wrong" in that I called the wrong winner, but those weer just coin tosses that came up the wrong way. 

I got Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio wrong in that matter, but that's because I rigged it to predict a Dem win. I might have just as well given all three plus Wisconsin to the Reps, those were the four states where either result would have been utterly unsurprising to me.

Most surprising to me was the size of Bush's victory in certain Southern states, notably Alabama, West Virginia and Oklahoma, and the size of the internal dynamics in California.

[Kevin]

Iowa going for Bush and, Wiscousin going for Kerry.

[Buckwheat]

Iowa going for Bush and, Wiscousin going for Kerry.

I agree with this.  By all accounts, it should have been opposite or at least Wisconsin should have gone for Bush.  But not by more than Kerry won it.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Iowa going for Bush and, Wiscousin going for Kerry.

I agree with this.  By all accounts, it should have been opposite or at least Wisconsin should have gone for Bush.  But not by more than Kerry won it.

Kerry probably didn't actually win Wisconsin.

[Harry]

Iowa going for Bush and, Wiscousin going for Kerry.

I agree with this.  By all accounts, it should have been opposite or at least Wisconsin should have gone for Bush.  But not by more than Kerry won it.

Kerry probably didn't actually win Wisconsin.

Alcon...what happened to you?  You used to be a nice and sane guy.  Alas.

Anyway, FL was the big shock; I thought we had a decent shot there.

[Nym90]

Florida.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Iowa going for Bush and, Wiscousin going for Kerry.

I agree with this.  By all accounts, it should have been opposite or at least Wisconsin should have gone for Bush.  But not by more than Kerry won it.

Kerry probably didn't actually win Wisconsin.

Alcon...what happened to you?  You used to be a nice and sane guy.  Alas.

Anyway, FL was the big shock; I thought we had a decent shot there.

What, you think that there wasn't fraud in Milwaukee?

[Nym90]

Iowa going for Bush and, Wiscousin going for Kerry.

I agree with this.  By all accounts, it should have been opposite or at least Wisconsin should have gone for Bush.  But not by more than Kerry won it.

Kerry probably didn't actually win Wisconsin.

Alcon...what happened to you?  You used to be a nice and sane guy.  Alas.

Anyway, FL was the big shock; I thought we had a decent shot there.

What, you think that there wasn't fraud in Milwaukee?

Was it enough to make the difference? If so, was it not countered by Republican fraud?

I honestly don't know the answers to those questions, but if Wisconsin was stolen, I highly doubt the Republicans would have not challenged the results legally.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010427.php

I hadn't paid attention to it since a few days after the election.  It looks from what I can find now like it wasn't likely Wisconsin was stolen, but it was probably closer than actually reported, and there is certainly a chance it was stolen.

At the very least, Milwaukee County has some splainin' to do.

[jerusalemcar5]

I say West Virginia.  Even with the majority of voter being registered Democrats and Bush not being all that popular in the nation, the networks were able to call WV without trouble.  I couldn't believe how quick it was.  I new it was all down hill from there...