Blue State Mason/Dixons

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I'm sorry.  I thought he was posting the 2000 M-D final poll figures and comparing them with the actual 2000 election results. 

Right...AuH20 claimed these polls showed a national Bush lead of 3-4%.  I'm showing that, on average, they show Bush doing only a fraction of 1% better than he did in 2000.

Nope, those are the current Mason Dixon polls. It would seem that he is trying to extrapolate an estimate on the current national popular vote from the Mason Dixon polls (since M-D doesn't do a national poll of course.)

[Giant Saguaro]

Not bad at all. I hope the Michigan number is accurate. Gosh, and MN. At least some major inroads in the north central US would probably factor enormously in post election analysis. I think Bush has a real shot to grab some of these states.

FL and OH first, though.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I don't know...I think the latest round of Mason-Dixons reflect a closer race than that.

Compare the latest M-D results with the 2000 election:

State     2000         M-D             Diff
FL         TIED          GOP +3      GOP +3
CO        GOP +8    GOP +6      Dem +2
MO       GOP +3     GOP +5      GOP +2
NV        GOP +4     GOP +10    GOP +6
NH        GOP +1     GOP +3      GOP +2
NC        GOP +13   GOP +8      Dem +5
OH        GOP +4     GOP +1      Dem +3
WV       GOP +6      GOP +5      Dem +1
IA          TIED          GOP +6      GOP +6
OR         TIED         Dem +1      Dem +1
PA         Dem +4     Dem +1     GOP +3
WI          TIED          TIED           TIED

Six show a gain for Republicans, five a gain for Democrats. 
The mean is a gain for Bush of less than 0.5%.
So I don't see at all how these show a Bush lead of 3-4% at all.  It's more likely that they show a popular vote tied, seeing as how Bush lost the popular vote by about 0.5% in 2000.

NickG:

I see a problem extrapolating these state percentage margins to a national PV margin - it doesn't take into account the varying voting population of the diiferent states.

These numbers do illustrate trends in the states from 2000, which are reasonable:

Bush gains in Blue states:
FL
MO
NV
NH

Kerry gains in Blue states (not enough to flip):
CO
NC
OH
WV

Bush gains in Red states:
IA (enough to flip)
PA (not enough to flip)

Kerry gains or tied in Red states:
WI
OR

[ATFFL]

I don't know...I think the latest round of Mason-Dixons reflect a closer race than that.

Compare the latest M-D results with the 2000 election:

State     2000         M-D             Diff
FL         TIED          GOP +3      GOP +3
CO        GOP +8    GOP +6      Dem +2
MO       GOP +3     GOP +5      GOP +2
NV        GOP +4     GOP +10    GOP +6
NH        GOP +1     GOP +3      GOP +2
NC        GOP +13   GOP +8      Dem +5
OH        GOP +4     GOP +1      Dem +3
WV       GOP +6      GOP +5      Dem +1
IA          TIED          GOP +6      GOP +6
OR         TIED         Dem +1      Dem +1
PA         Dem +4     Dem +1     GOP +3
WI          TIED          TIED           TIED

Six show a gain for Republicans, five a gain for Democrats. 
The mean is a gain for Bush of less than 0.5%.
So I don't see at all how these show a Bush lead of 3-4% at all.  It's more likely that they show a popular vote tied, seeing as how Bush lost the popular vote by about 0.5% in 2000.

You are not taking into account population size. 

GOP +3 in Florida means more than the Dem +3 in Ohio

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't know...I think the latest round of Mason-Dixons reflect a closer race than that.

Compare the latest M-D results with the 2000 election:

State     2000         M-D             Diff
FL         TIED          GOP +3      GOP +3
CO        GOP +8    GOP +6      Dem +2
MO       GOP +3     GOP +5      GOP +2
NV        GOP +4     GOP +10    GOP +6
NH        GOP +1     GOP +3      GOP +2
NC        GOP +13   GOP +8      Dem +5
OH        GOP +4     GOP +1      Dem +3
WV       GOP +6      GOP +5      Dem +1
IA          TIED          GOP +6      GOP +6
OR         TIED         Dem +1      Dem +1
PA         Dem +4     Dem +1     GOP +3
WI          TIED          TIED           TIED

Six show a gain for Republicans, five a gain for Democrats. 
The mean is a gain for Bush of less than 0.5%.
So I don't see at all how these show a Bush lead of 3-4% at all.  It's more likely that they show a popular vote tied, seeing as how Bush lost the popular vote by about 0.5% in 2000.

You are not taking into account population size. 

GOP +3 in Florida means more than the Dem +3 in Ohio

You're right that this is very inexact.  Averaging GOP +3 in Florida and Dem +3 in Ohio may not result in a tie, but it certainly doesn't result in GOP +3 or 4 as AuH20 was claiming.   It's much closer to even than it is to such a wide margin.

[ATFFL]

It averages out to about Bush +2%. 

[The Vorlon]

here is an actual link now

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm889_20041021.htm

[Erc]

No Minnesota?  (confirmed, that is)

[MHS2002]

Here's a link with the guts of IA, MI, OR, PA, WI

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6056143/

[minionofmidas]

The polls are only bad news for Kerry in so far as it confirms he is losing, and by a significant if small amount (3-4 points).

"Only"? That's the whole friggin' point! Here I'm telling myself "wait for this reportedly good pollster, see Bush losing there", and they try to snuff out all hope for a better tomorrow! AAARGH!
Okay.
Paranoia moment over.
I hope they got some wrong assumptions in there that make all these polls wrong. Hope dies last, but right now it's fading.

[The Vorlon]

<<iowa>>

I would read these, taking everything into account, as perhaps a modest Bush lead, but "Tossup" is not a crazy call either.

Another "gloat" bump