Doesn’t look good

[Silent Hunter]

Barring Zogby, who we all know is on something illegal, no national poll has a Kerry lead.

If Bush is up 2.8% on average, I don't see how any missed group can unseat him. This unpolled 3% is a) students who have a low turnout or b) exactly like the rest of the electorate. Most of the RVs are unlikely to become LVs.

Fat lady on standby.

[J. J.]

The current Fox numbers are +2 Bush among LVs, TIED among RVs....but you already know this, because you posted in that poll's thread, so I don't know why you're ignoring it in this one.

You are correct on the Fox numbers, sorry.  I was looking at Newsweeek, and at OH M-D poll.  We are looking at upswing from last week.  Kerry should be moving, if he was going to be moving; he is not.  I am seeing the trend towards Bush in these last polls, esp. the Newsweek poll.

[HoopsCubs]

We are on the verge of disaster.
According to latest polls, there is a real danger that Bush will stay in office.

You should re-name yourself Chicken Little.   In general, the polls since the Republican Convention have been in favor of the President.  Or, were you just sleeping the whole last month?   Bush has been favored to stay in office as far as I can tell since the race started, so nothing has changed.   

Each candidate is being forced to defend some states they won in 2000.  Bush is trying to protect FL, OH, NH and NV;  Kerry is trying to protect PA, MI, MN, WI, IA, NM.

Kerry's chance to win is completely predicated on high voter turnout, and which way the "cell phone only" club leans.

You must have a different definition of disaster than I.  I dis-like Bush immensely and am standing first in line in Illinois to kick him out, but as long as the earth is not quaking, no tidal waves are around, and the Iraqis, Iranians, Al Queda, Palistinians  and North Koreans are not pointing missiles at us, there is no disaster.

Hoops

[J. J.]

Kerry's chance to win is completely predicated on high voter turnout, and which way the "cell phone only" club leans.

You just broke J. J.'s Second Rule of Elections:  "When a politican or activist talks about a large group of voters that, a. aren't being polled, or b. really going to turn out and swing the election, there is no such group." 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Difficult to say which way things are going.  A few months ago (heck, a few weeks ago) if you had told me that it would be possible for us to reprise 2000 by having the winners of the PV and EV differ, I would have thought you had to be describing a Bush victory in the EV and a Kerry victory in the PV.  However, while I see that Bush should have a solid 1-3% lock on the PV. I basically have the EV as tossup still with, depending on how you look at the numbers, either Bush or Kerry with a slight advantage.  And then there are all the fanciful scenarios for a 269-269 tie, including one I've seen that ends up with a President John McCain!

[J. J.]

I basically see this as a firewall situation

To start of with, you have 2000 R states; these are worth 278 EV.  Two of these, OH and NH are close and are tossups; subtract 24 from this number and you get 254.  You also have one 2000 D state that is fairly solid GOP this year, NM, with 5 EV.  So you have the R Base as 259.

Now, you have some states that are not realy close, but possible, PA and possibly or MI, NJ.  Kerry must hold these to prevent a Bush victory; either one will give Bush a victory.

Now we come OH; with 20 EV Kerry must win it.

There are also some states that Kerry needs in combination.  The combination, or groups are:

Group A                              Group B
WI, IA, MN                          NH, HI

Kerry to win must win PA, NJ, MI, and OH.  He must win either three from Group A or  two from Group A and all from Group B.  Kerry has to win four definite states and three out of five of the second tier group. 

Out of this group, Bush needs 11 EV, which he can get by winning any one of those five or any two from Group A or one from Group A and one from Group B.

It's basically easier for Bush to win at this point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Click on the little map button at left and you'll see my prediction.  Right now I have:
Kerry (strong or lean): 251
Kerry (tossup): 11
Bush (tossup): 49
Bush (strong or lean): 227

So while I give Bush the edge, most of the potential change is to Kerry instead of against Kerry.
The contest (beyond the neccessary shoring up of leaning states) is in New Mexico, Florida, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Maine CD 2.

Florida is traditionally hard to poll and the huricanes and early voting have made that worse.  If I could be as confident of Florida polls as those from other States, I'd have this state as leaning Bush.

Wisconsin is the fulcrum at this point.  If I had to pick a single State that will be on the winning side that is the one.  GOTV efforts in that State will make the difference, especially with same-day registration.IIRC.

[Downwinder]

IF Bush is re-elected, there is a bright side--the condition of the country, domestically and internationally, will probably continue to deteriorate, and the Republicans take the minority role for the next generation.  (See, there's a bright side to everything!)

IF Kerry is elected, expect much of the same, although it won't damage the Democrats quite so bad, as the situation was inherited.  But Kerry will be a one-term president.  (Bright side for you Republicans too!)

[A18]

The country has been growing stronger for the past three years, so I don't know how you can say "continue to deteriorate."

[Downwinder]

Growing stronger from who's standpoint??  A tepid economic recovery, 1100+ dead in Iraq with the situation tenuous at best, and the greatest division in the country since god know when??

Sounds good to me.

[A18]

An economic recovery, no matter how slow or tepid, is never a deteriorating situation.

There are 700 Americans dying in Iraq each year. And 50,000 die in traffic accidents each year. You do the math.

Man, what's it like to be a Bush-basher in Salt Lake City, Utah?

[WalterMitty]

there is a pretty big liberal community in slc.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

An economic recovery, no matter how slow or tepid, is never a deteriorating situation.

There are 700 Americans dying in Iraq each year. And 50,000 die in traffic accidents each year. You do the math.

By that logic, why is Bush worrying about the War on Terrorism when a War on Traffic Accidents could save more US lives?

[A18]

It's kind of hard to fight a war on traffic accidents.

We're at war with terrorism because A.) it's a sick, deliberate injustice, B.) the economic damage hurts millions of people, and C.) if they get nukes, bye bye civillization.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Build better highways and more mass transit.  $50 billion a year would about triple highway spending in this country IIRC.

[A18]

But for the three reasons I gave, we don't really have that option.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If we're going to crusade against injustice, when are we going to invade Zimbabwe or Burma?

The economic damage from traffic accidents is worse, we've just become used to it, that's all.

I seriously doubt that terrorists will be able to get their hands on nukes any time soon.  If they do, it's a lot likelier it'll be a stolen nuke from the former Soviet Union than it will be an Irani, Pakistani, or North Korean nuke handed over to a terrorist.  In any case, Bush hasn't done anything to make the likelihood a terrorist getting his hands on nukes lower than it was.  If anything the incompetence of his administration's planning for Iraq has made it more likely, not less likely that Iran will be a nuclear power by the end of the decade.

I am yanking your chain a bit here, as I'm not seriously suggesting we abandon the war on terrorism, but just simply throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it either, and throwing money is about the only thing that the Bush administartion has shown that it can do well.

[Nym90]

If we're going to crusade against injustice, when are we going to invade Zimbabwe or Burma?

The economic damage from traffic accidents is worse, we've just become used to it, that's all.

I seriously doubt that terrorists will be able to get their hands on nukes any time soon.  If they do, it's a lot likelier it'll be a stolen nuke from the former Soviet Union than it will be an Irani, Pakistani, or North Korean nuke handed over to a terrorist.  In any case, Bush hasn't done anything to make the likelihood a terrorist getting his hands on nukes lower than it was.  If anything the incompetence of his administration's planning for Iraq has made it more likely, not less likely that Iran will be a nuclear power by the end of the decade.

I am yanking your chain a bit here, as I'm not seriously suggesting we abandon the war on terrorism, but just simply throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it either, and throwing money is about the only thing that the Bush administartion has shown that it can do well.

Good point. Conservatives love to say that we can't throw money at a problem and hope it will go away, but the same clearly goes for the war on terror.

I agree with your analysis that the money could be better spent elsewhere. Terrorism is important, and we should definitely combat it, but from a strict cost-benefit analysis, factoring in all of the risks and potential rewards,  I don't think we are getting the best possible use of our money and lives right now. The war in Iraq isn't making us safer from terrorism much, if at all; certainly not enough to make it worth the expense, in my view.

You can still make a moral case for the war, but the President hasn't made that his main argument, and that's a completely different road to go down, anyway; very different from trying to say that it's in the best interests of our nation to spend the money on the war, as opposed to spending it on something else, and for it to be worthwhile for the soliders to die in Iraq rather than do something else here. If you look at it logically and rationally in this regard, it becomes harder to justify.

I'm not one of those knee-jerk bleeding hearts who says war is morally wrong; I truly do feel that the benefits are not as great as conservatives seem to think, and thus don't justify the cost.

[??????????]

Social issues need to be put on the sidelines right now. We have a war to fight and win.

I'd rather be in debt and free then debt free and dead.

[Shira]

Social issues need to be put on the sidelines right now. We have a war to fight and win.

The best we can say about this "war" is:
Fake, Phoney, Fraud

[David S]

Dems and Repubs need to quit worrying. Both Bush and Kerry have a reasonable chance of winning.
For Libertarians, our guy has virtually no chance. Ironically he is the only one of the three who intends to abide by his oath of office to uphold the constitution if elected.

[StevenNick]

Social issues need to be put on the sidelines right now. We have a war to fight and win.

The best we can say about this "war" is:
Fake, Phoney, Fraud

Of course, the same can be said of John Kerry's tan.

[??????????]

Social issues need to be put on the sidelines right now. We have a war to fight and win.

The best we can say about this "war" is:
Fake, Phoney, Fraud

Of course because to people like you 9-11 was meaningless. It disgusts me how people in this country have become a bunch of pansies.

[opebo]

An economic recovery, no matter how slow or tepid, is never a deteriorating situation.

Not so, because the US population is still growing at about 1% per year, so the meager economic growth coupled with fairly high productivity growth equals a deteriorating employment and living standard situation.  Good for profits though.