An apolitical post

[Vinatieri for Prez]

First off, I lean democratic. I consider myself a fiscally conservative democrat (is there such a thing? I guess conservative on economic, spending issues, but liberal on social issues). Which is why Bush has lost me this time around. The only thing that makes me consider Republicans is a balanced budget, less spending, etc. This clearly has not happened this time around. Good to get that out of the way, so you know where I am coming from.

I also am fascinated by politics and contributed in previous months to the political threads before it became the all out partisan warfare that it is now. Now, it is kind of a waste of time.

What I do find fascinating is how this election is shaping up and the clear fact that this election will be won in the battleground states and their effect on the electoral college. I make no other point here other than to say I wanted to share with you two AWESOME sites that lay out all the state races based on recent (and historical) and scientific, nonpartisan polling and the effect on the electoral college. I posted these in another thread, but here they are again in case some of you stayed out of the political thread I posted in there. You can see some real trends and the fact that Bush has his hands full on maintaing his presidency (if things stay as they are now, which NEVER happens) -- but it is still cool to follow along.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...-frameset.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bus...erry_sbys.html

[CraigSca]

Isn't conservative on spending issues yet liberal on social issues a recipe for a lifetime of heartache?

I suppose technically there's a balance there somewhere

[Tekneek]

Most people that I know who describe themselves as conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues consider themselves to be Libertarian. Libertarians are way more conservative on fiscal issues than Republicans though, and way more liberal on social issues than Democrats.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Isn't conservative on spending issues yet liberal on social issues a recipe for a lifetime of heartache?

I suppose technically there's a balance there somewhere

Actually, I think such a person is called a greedy liberal.

[QuikSand]

Bumping for the weekday crowd, and hoping they won't be misled by the title.

This is certainly political, though perhaps in a nonpartisan sense. But very interesting.

[albionmoonlight]

I am (so) happy that I am in a state that is not "in play." I don't know if I could stand TV ads from both candidates from now until November.

[QuikSand]

alb - I know the feeling. I saw an ad from the DC station one night (in the background while playing poekr at somebody's house) and thought "who in the hell are they trying to reach with this?" MD and DC are locked up blue, VA is locked up red... are they advertising in DC to get West Virginia? Or am I getting carried away with the focus on swing states?

[albionmoonlight]

I don't think that you are carried away. I can't see how it is anything other than throwing money away to campaign in non-swing states. The WV thing might be the answer. I do not know how far the DC TV stations' markets extend.

Of course, getting out the vote for the presidental race can help in other Congressional races, but I don't see why they would spend precious limited presidental funds for such an indirect benefit.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Isn't conservative on spending issues yet liberal on social issues a recipe for a lifetime of heartache?

I suppose technically there's a balance there somewhere

meh- its a libertarian stance- one I tend to agree with..

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

alb - I know the feeling. I saw an ad from the DC station one night (in the background while playing poekr at somebody's house) and thought "who in the hell are they trying to reach with this?" MD and DC are locked up blue, VA is locked up red... are they advertising in DC to get West Virginia? Or am I getting carried away with the focus on swing states?

No, you aren't overemphasizing the swing state approach to political advertising, that's pretty much dictating where the funds go anymore.

Now, that said, there's still a token amount of money being spent in states that are locked in to one party or another; perhaps you just happened to see one of those random spots?

Heck, in Georgia (which is considered a lock), we can't even get Bush/Cheney yard signs without ordering them directly from the national campaign & paying for them -- the free signs are all earmarked for battleground states.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Heck, in Georgia (which is considered a lock), we can't even get Bush/Cheney yard signs without ordering them directly from the national campaign & paying for them -- the free signs are all earmarked for battleground states.

My roommate in Law School called up Rick Lazio's campaign when he was running against H. Clinton for the senate seat. He asked them for a bumper sticker, which they were reluctant to send him because he lived in North Carolina. They only ended up sending him one when he explained how he was president of the UNC Law chapter of the Federalist Society and asked please.

If you need someone to vouch for your Republican bona fides, Jon, in order for you to get a free sign, you can send 'em my way.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Actually, I think such a person is called a greedy liberal.

Hmm. You may be right. I constantly struggle with my compassion for the less fortunate, while at the same time "hangin' on to what I got." I think I will get it figured out in another 10 years when Chris Matthews is president. He's good, but I wish he wouldn't interrupt his guests after he asks a question and they get out only 3 words (and not because it's the usual "answer the question you want to answer" b.s.)

I am so addicted to this political stuff (like crack) that I am chomping at the bit for August 16th so I can see the WSJ new little blue/red state graphic from the Zogby poll in the link above. I can't help it.

Hey I like the tone so far, we should keep this up with constructive non-partisan thinkings on the campaigns for the next 84 days or so. Partisan interference should be dealt with harshly.

As for advertising in totally locked up states, the only thing I can think of is that it is done to make donors from that state happy, or just to be on the safe side. I think Gore lost some states in the South (like Tennessee) by pretty much ignoring them.

[QuikSand]

Okay... let's assume (whether it's actually true or not) that the general thrust of these state-by-state polls is accurate, and these two things are true:

-Natiowide polling has Bush and Kerry very close to even

-Nearly all "swing states" are stronger for Kerry than they were for Bush in the 2000 election


If those two things are true -- then what is going on?

I guess the obvious explanation would be that President Bush has appealed more strongly to the "blue base" than did candidate Bush... and so if we did some state-by-state analyses in the deep South and near West, we'd see that his margins are better there than they were fouur years ago.

Is that the only viable explanation for what we might be seeing here? Or do we think that Bush might be doing better in some places where he lost last time? Or, is there a global shift (in the last four years) of enough consequence to matter here?

[Bee]

Until the Republican Convention, I think the polls are a little misleading. Bush should get a little bump from that and many of the swing states that are leaning toward Kerry will either become dead heats or lean toward Bush IMO.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I guess the obvious explanation would be that President Bush has appealed more strongly to the "blue base" than did candidate Bush... and so if we did some state-by-state analyses in the deep South and near West, we'd see that his margins are better there than they were fouur years ago.

The polls above don't show that. The margins they show for the deep south looks to be at/below what they were in 2000.

Is that the only viable explanation for what we might be seeing here? Or do we think that Bush might be doing better in some places where he lost last time? Or, is there a global shift (in the last four years) of enough consequence to matter here?

I don't think it is a "global shift." It might be that he has improved slightly in some states that he is still losing (didn't he lose California pretty badly? A small gain there would still put him well behind, but would help him on the national totals).

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Bee

Until the Republican Convention, I think the polls are a little misleading. Bush should get a little bump from that and many of the swing states that are leaning toward Kerry will either become dead heats or lean toward Bush IMO.

I understand this is certainly possible - that's why I used the fairly clear caveat that I did, right up front.

But my observation isn't about predicting the outcome o this election -- it's just about understanding the math involved. If the relative forces for Bush and his opponent are just about the same on a nationwide level as they were four years ago -- why is it that we still see a one-directional shift in so many swing states? Whether these percentages will hold or not is immaterial to that question.

[albionmoonlight]

Maybe Bush the President is doing better in the red states than Bush the Candidate did. We hear that this election is polarizing. Perhaps the President's base in those states is more active than it was four years ago. I don't know how these polls count people who didn't vote last time and/or do not plan to vote this time.

[Bubba Wheels]

My opinion (valued accordingly!)...the media wants the 'horse race' and hence skews the polls closer than they actually are. Unless the economy totally tanks (making everybody mad and taking it out on Bush) Bush wins with relative ease. That gives us 4 years to prepare for Hillary's coming (Mitt Romney running for the Gop).

[QuikSand]

The media are "fixing" the polls? That's really your explanation?

[Bee]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I understand this is certainly possible - that's why I used the fairly clear caveat that I did, right up front.

But my observation isn't about predicting the outcome o this election -- it's just about understanding the math involved. If the relative forces for Bush and his opponent are just about the same on a nationwide level as they were four years ago -- why is it that we still see a one-directional shift in so many swing states? Whether these percentages will hold or not is immaterial to that question.

Oh...my post actually wasn't responding to your question but just a general statement about the poll overall.

To figure out your question would probably take a state by state breakdown comparing these polls to the previous election. A quick look seems to indicate Bush has probably gained ground in states that he lost last time and is probably still losing (just not as bad).

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Okay... let's assume (whether it's actually true or not) that the general thrust of these state-by-state polls is accurate, and these two things are true:

-Natiowide polling has Bush and Kerry very close to even

-Nearly all "swing states" are stronger for Kerry than they were for Bush in the 2000 election


If those two things are true -- then what is going on?

I guess the obvious explanation would be that President Bush has appealed more strongly to the "blue base" than did candidate Bush... and so if we did some state-by-state analyses in the deep South and near West, we'd see that his margins are better there than they were fouur years ago.

Is that the only viable explanation for what we might be seeing here? Or do we think that Bush might be doing better in some places where he lost last time? Or, is there a global shift (in the last four years) of enough consequence to matter here?

A few of my thoughts:

--Not an original thought here, but again worth pointing out: It really sounds like 90% of the country has already decided who they are voting for and it is pretty well evenly split. These two groups will not be shifting (outside of a major, major event) regardless of conventions, ads, debates, etc.

--Kerry is picking up support in these swing states for three reasons and this is why I believe he has a strong chance to win. First, I think Kerry will get more of the military vote than Gore (who was part of an administration that really cut down on military jobs) did due to his background/network and general war fatigue (although still nowhere as much as Bush). Second, from what I have read, the population of minorities (which tend to lean toward the democrats) has grown dramatically. Third, general war fatigue and skepticism on the economy on the small swing voter population.

--I don't think there will be a big bounce following the republican convention either, again because of the polarized bases on each side. I think Bush will win if he succeeds through stumping, advertising, and debating to show that Kerry really has no agenda beyond not being Bush. I also think Bush's surrogates would be much, much, more effective if they pounded on Kerry for his time protesting the war, rather than his actual service. Bush's best bet is that enough of the liberal base will be turned off by Kerry by the time the election rolls around that they simply won't vote in the numbers the Democrats are expecting.

--In the end, I don't see a lot of states changing from 2000. I think Wisconsin and Iowa are the best bets for the Republicans. I think the Democrats can pick up New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Nevada. I don't think Ohio will be close--I think it will stay with the Republicans. And not suprisingly, I really think Florida will be the biggest prize again.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

...Unless the economy totally tanks (making everybody mad and taking it out on Bush) Bush wins with relative ease...

I think you might want to prepare yourself for disappointment.

I mean I hope you are correct that Bush can pull this off, but really I think he is WAY behind. I don't think he is going to win Florida this time 'round. So he has to make up ground elsewhere, and I can't see a state that went for Gore over Bush last time selecting Bush over Kerry this time. I went for Bush over Gore then, and I still find it difficult to vote for Bush this time.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think you might want to prepare yourself for disappointment.

I mean I hope you are correct that Bush can pull this off, but really I think he is WAY behind. I don't think he is going to win Florida this time 'round. So he has to make up ground elsewhere, and I can't see a state that went for Gore over Bush last time selecting Bush over Kerry this time. I went for Bush over Gore then, and I still find it difficult to vote for Bush this time.

I agree with this sentiment and that which was expressed in an earlier post. I think he'll be stronger in the states he won last time around, but will lose some key swing states and badly. The popular vote will be closer than the electoral college vote.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I agree. First, it just isn't statistically possible frankly to have as close a dead heat as last time. There will be no landslide, but there will be no recounts. You guys have it right. Bush has gained a little I think in the states he lost, but not enough to win the states and that has offset his losses in the swing states (as it relates to the popular vote). I think the Republican Convention will have a very minor bounce for Bush that will tighten the race considerably, but something is gonna break in October (debates, economy, terror, etc.) that will "comfortably" push it to one side or the other.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

My opinion (valued accordingly!)...the media wants the 'horse race' and hence skews the polls closer than they actually are. Unless the economy totally tanks (making everybody mad and taking it out on Bush) Bush wins with relative ease. That gives us 4 years to prepare for Hillary's coming (Mitt Romney running for the Gop).

Thanks for your insightful comment. No doubt it is the "liberal" media to which you refer. Many of the polls are scientific and nonpartisan, so leave this thread and throw your ideas around somewhere else. People who were surveyed answer the question "Bush," Kerry," or "Undecided." It's that simple. There is no skewing, only a statistical margin of error.

Did you not read the title of this thread?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

New Michigan poll:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bus...erry_sbys.html
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/...9_20040811.htm

Looks about the same sort of lead as prior polls, but a little bit of a gain from the prior poll conducted by EPIC/MRA a little over a month ago. Nothing earth shattering though.

New Florida poll out too (same link), with Kerry still holding a small lead in Florida. Never heard of the Quinnepac poll, so I am not sure how much faith to put into that. I find the Florida race the most intriguing. We still have Jeb there who will work hard for GWB, and then we will likely have a larger turnout (I think on both sides), and then you have the whole "will the votes all be counted" thing going on (from which I understand hasn't been fully figured out yet).

I think whoever wins this state (27 electoral votes) wins the whole shebang.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

bump

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

bump

I always prefered the "Hustle."