What happened to Bush in WI?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Was he never ahead, or did his support collapse?

WI (or MN) was Bush’s backup plan in case of a loss in OH.  Without WI (or MN), Bush has to win OH….or hope for a prayer in MI.

[zachman]

What's happened to Kerry in Ohio?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html

Look at the opposing trends in Ohio and Wisconsin over the last week.

[Dr. Cynic]

I read the electoral college tied the other day...

[A18]

A tie is not a tie. It is a Bush victory.

[Sam Spade]

This post is warranting a remark from mypalfish.  

Honestly, its hard to tell what trends are at work here.  Throughout most of this campaign, Wisconsin seemed to be trending towards Bush and then at some point it move back towards Kerry.  Amusingly enough, it appears like both Minnesota and Iowa have moved the other way.

Clearly Wisconsin is a definite toss-up, as both campaigns are scheduled to be there tomorrow.  It appears like to me that Kerry is trying to go for a Ohio-Wisconsin strategy, while desperately trying to hold on to Michigan, New Hampshire and Minnesota.  He assumes that Rendell can hold the fort in Pennsylvania.

My gut tells me that New Mexico is pretty much over with.  Kerry will still campaign very hard for Iowa and Florida, it'll just be tougher get those, so he's going with this other strategy.

[A18]

I didn't notice a Bush collapse in WI, by the way.

mypalfish: I told you Bush wouldn't win here.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What's happened to Kerry in Ohio?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html

Look at the opposing trends in Ohio and Wisconsin over the last week.

I am not sure I am buying any of this crap!

[AuH2O]

Reports of Bush's demise in WI are very premature.

Bush has IA and NM in the bag; FL is pretty much his.

WI is very close, and will probably come down to turnout. Bush will do better in OH than WI, so I don't think it will actually be decisive.

[Sam Spade]

Polling averages right now being skewed too much by Zogby crapola.  I don't trust them right now.

[zachman]

Who knows about New Mexico anyways? Remember how big a surprise that was in 2000. Kerry definetly needs Ohio and Minnesota though.

[The Duke]

Bush looked at Ohio and decided he had to recover there, so he turned his attention there.  Kerry looked at Wisconsin, decided he had to recover there, so he turned his attention there.

While each was looking to hold ground from 2000, each lost what gains they had once made.

[mypalfish]

This post is warranting a remark from mypalfish.  

Honestly, its hard to tell what trends are at work here.  Throughout most of this campaign, Wisconsin seemed to be trending towards Bush and then at some point it move back towards Kerry.  Amusingly enough, it appears like both Minnesota and Iowa have moved the other way.

Clearly Wisconsin is a definite toss-up, as both campaigns are scheduled to be there tomorrow.  It appears like to me that Kerry is trying to go for a Ohio-Wisconsin strategy, while desperately trying to hold on to Michigan, New Hampshire and Minnesota.  He assumes that Rendell can hold the fort in Pennsylvania.

My gut tells me that New Mexico is pretty much over with.  Kerry will still campaign very hard for Iowa and Florida, it'll just be tougher get those, so he's going with this other strategy.

Actually, since about a month ago, we've noticed a real bump in the number of ads (candidate and 527's) for Kerry/against Bush.  I'm guessing the ads are running 2-1 over the President's.  That makes a difference.

Another problem is that the Kerry campaign is just more effective here, imo.   This is why I'm so skeptical about the supposed 72 hour plan and the GOTV juggernaut Bush is supposed to have.  Our offices have little kids making calls/answering phones and just too many volunteers who don't know what they're doing (granted, some people think I'm nuts and don't know what I'm doing for telling people things aren't going very well here when I'm asked).  

The only way Bush can win Wisconsin now is if there is a national tidalwave so the grassroots effort isn't a factor.  

[Erc]

Plus there's same day registration in WI--so if he doesn't have at least a convincing 2-pt lead going into it, it's gonna be tough for Bush.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Actually, since about a month ago, we've noticed a real bump in the number of ads (candidate and 527's) for Kerry/against Bush.  I'm guessing the ads are running 2-1 over the President's.  That makes a difference.

That is why it is extremely hard to figure out what is going on in these states, unless you know ads and news the voters are actually seeing.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Plus there's same day registration in WI--so if he doesn't have at least a convincing 2-pt lead going into it, it's gonna be tough for Bush.

Hey, if you're in Milwaukee on Tuesday, dress like a homeless person and you could score some free cigarettes!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Plus there's same day registration in WI--so if he doesn't have at least a convincing 2-pt lead going into it, it's gonna be tough for Bush.

Hey, if you're in Milwaukee on Tuesday, dress like a homeless person and you could score some free cigarettes!

Hey Beef,

Weren't you once a Democrat?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The only way Bush can win Wisconsin now is if there is a national tidalwave so the grassroots effort isn't a factor. 

There's some very good groundwork for Bush as well.  Voter pledge certificates in church bulletins and whatnot.  Note that people are only pledging to vote, not to vote for any specific candidate, as the churches aren't endorsing any particular candidate nudge nudge wink wink.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Plus there's same day registration in WI--so if he doesn't have at least a convincing 2-pt lead going into it, it's gonna be tough for Bush.

Hey, if you're in Milwaukee on Tuesday, dress like a homeless person and you could score some free cigarettes!

Hey Beef,

Weren't you once a Democrat?

As late as 1998, yes.  I voted:

Clinton in 96.
Feingold in 98.
Bush in 2000.
Libertarian against Kohl in 2000.
Ed Thompson (Libertarian for Gov.) in 2002.
Bush / Feingold in 2004.

Also in 6th Grade, I wrote "Dump George and Danny" all over my Trapper Keeper at school.

Living for 6 years in Madison will kill the Democrat in most people.

[WalterMitty]

bush +8 in wisconsin, so says gallup

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

bush +8 in wisconsin, so says gallup

If Gallop and UW-Madison say Bush is ahead outside the MoE, he must be ahead, right?  What about Lucky?  What does Lucky say?

I just don't want to lose my bet with Phillip (if either candidate wins by >5%, I have to turn my avatar red).

[A18]

Bush 53%, Kerry 47%

Just wait

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Bush 53%, Kerry 47%

Just wait

Nader and Badnarik will combine for at least 1%, maybe 2%.  Perouka may get a few thousand votes as well, especially in the rural north.

[ATFFL]

bush +8 in wisconsin, so says gallup

If Gallop and UW-Madison say Bush is ahead outside the MoE, he must be ahead, right?  What about Lucky?  What does Lucky say?

I just don't want to lose my bet with Phillip (if either candidate wins by >5%, I have to turn my avatar red).

Lucky gives it to Kerry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

bush +8 in wisconsin, so says gallup

If Gallop and UW-Madison say Bush is ahead outside the MoE, he must be ahead, right?  What about Lucky?  What does Lucky say?

I just don't want to lose my bet with Phillip (if either candidate wins by >5%, I have to turn my avatar red).

Bush will win Wisconsin big. You'd better vote Kerry.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am not sure I am buying any of this crap!

Have you read by mini-essay on uncertainty? It's on the Members Weblog and also HERE