« Paul Krugman Weighs in on the Gallup Problem | Main | Advocates of Government Action to Reduce Inequality Prefer Kerry »

Another Solid Lead for Kerry in Ohio

The new Ohio University/Scripps Survey Research Center poll, conducted October 17-21, gives Kerry a 6 point lead among registered voters (49-43). And see Chris Bowers over at MyDD for a roundup of all the recent Ohio polls and just how good they make Kerry's situation look in Ohio.

So: both Pennsylvania and Ohio are looking good for Kerry. And if that conventional wisdom is correct that the victor in the 2004 election will be the candidate that carries 2 of 3 key big states (Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida), he's therefore looking very good overall.

Comments

I think that conventional wisdom (2 out of OH, PA, FL, wins) is subject to modification that only one out of IA, MN, WI, loses. Right now, it seems to me that Kerry has OH and PA probably, and need either FL or two of IA, MN, WI? (Hope the numbers are right.) But the midwest has me worried, since Kerry seems weak in all those three. Any thoughts?

Yes, but Iowa and Wisconsin could overcome a Kerry victory in Ohio. We need either one of those two, or Florida, right? If we can't turn Colorado. How do we look for Iowa and Wisconsin?

And as (I think) Calpundit mentioned today, Bush has stopped visiting Ohio...

There's a scenario, mentioned on several other sites including mydd.com, where Bush wins without Ohio or Pennsylvania, by taking Wisconsin and Iowa along with Florida. Wisconsin polls seem better for Bush these days than Ohio polls. This is what I'm wondering about: if Kerry does win Ohio, in addition to Pennsylvania, how likely is it that he would simultaneously lose in both Wisconsin and Iowa? This just doesn't seem like a probable scenario to me.

Generally speaking, I'm not that much of an electoral vote counter. If Kerry gets more than a 1-1.5% win in the popular vote, the electoral college will almost certainly take care of itself, as the likelihood of winning enough swing states to get to 270 from a popular vote base of 1.5-2% less than your opponent is extremely far-fetched. But, still, it would be good to have some idea of how much the Ohio results are really reflective of the country as a whole.

Very encouraging news on Ohio.

Any thoughts on Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico? Those ones make me a tad nervous....

I wonder if Jesse Ventura endorsing Kerry will help?

One more electoral version. Suppose Kerry holds Wisconsin, but loses Iowa and New Mexico. If he gets Ohio and New Hampshire, he gets 272 EV. So...let's not forget New Hampshire, too.

I live in Milwaukee. As you may recall, Gore won Wisconsin by a mere five thousand votes in 2000. Now, an African American (Gwen Moore) is the Democractic nominee for the 4th Congressional District that covers the heavily Democratic City of Milwaukee. The Republican has no chance. However, there will be a large turnout among African-American voters here. In addition, there was a big push to register new voters--although Wisconsin is one of the few states that allows registration at the polls. In addition, Wisconsin has "early voting." Again, one of the few states that allows early voting and absentee voting for ANY reason.
The turnout will be large, Russ Feingold will coast to victory in the US Senate race (the Republican is a first-time candidate for statewide office, and is against abortion for ANY reason--to give you a flavor of his politics). Kerry will be pulled along for the victory.

I'm also worried about the Upper Midwest, however it's hard to imagine Kerry winning Pa and OH and then losing two out those three (IA MI WI).
It's curious how Zogby had Kery up by 9 and Rasmussen now has it tied in Minnesota basically for the same period of time. Both are reputable, right? Why such a big difference.
I'd say of the three, he's safest in Minn. but he's got to hang on to at least one of the other two.
Any Upper Midwestern thoughts on this?

I was at a Kerry rally in MPLS MN last night.

The Pioneer Press today (A Knight Ridder REPUB Rag) cited 30000 in the crowd. My personal estimate was it was probably closer to 50,000. Lots of energy!

The Pioneer Press cited a 51-? Bush plurality BUT they are linked to MSNBC and I think that they are oversampling Repubs. They don't cite internals in their article so it was hard to discern what their sampling assumptions represent for the population. I think it is a "Gallupized" poll.

Interestingly there was an article in the paper that appeared to be downplaying a cell phone undersampling issue.

I think Kerry is going to send the Village Idiot back to crawford TX.

If Kerry wins Florida as well as PA and OH it's a win. Florida is looking shaky for Bush. Republicans have underestimated the impact of the medicare bill flop, and now there's the flu shot fiasco as well.

Here in NM, Gov. Richardson is on the tube mobilizing support with ads supporting JK. He is incredibly popular with Hispanic and AmerIndian voters in this state. The entire North and South Valley of Albq (historically Hispanic neighborhoods) and the UNM area are Kerry
strongholds. The center-left here is fired up. I know folks who are voting Dem for the first time in their lives because they want W out. One is a Repub who is a Vietnamese immigrant, served in the S. Vietnamese army and has voted for the right for thirty years. Another is a non-voting independent who used to think both political parties were 'the same.'

Also, here in NM, Gore won by 300 plus votes in 2000 with a strong Green vote for Nader (over 20,000) and a Repub gov. I'd be surprised if Nader comes close to that this time. Bush's support in this state comes from Anglo ranchers in the south and urban whites in Albq affiliated with the military bases, labs and evangelical churches. This is, and will remain a Dem state as long as the party GOTV. I'd be real surprised if Bush wins NM.

NM looks good. I am also concerned with Wisc. and IA. Although trends in Wisc. appear to be in Kerry's favor.

Me, too. Even with New Mexico, PA and OH Kerry still needs either Iowa or Wisconsin or Florida. With FL still run by Jeb who knows what the polls - or even the vote - means as regards the outcome. Are there any updates/info on IA or WI?? I and many others would feel a lot better if there were some good signs there.

Also, does anyone think it's time for KE to start letting up a bit on Ohio and PA, since leads there seem fairly solid and concentrate more on IA and WI? Makes sense to me.

I'm not that worried about wisconsin. Other then the gallup poll(which i don't trust(, the last 4 polls show bush and kerry at 46.75 percent when you average them together. That is a pretty low number for an incumbent. Even with the gallup poll, bush is at 47.4, still pretty low for an incumbent.

Kerry is in good shape in MN. Bush is only at an average of 45, compared to kerry 46.2 in the last 4 polls.

Iowa does have me worried, bush has an average of a 3.5 lead in the last 4 polls.

New Hampshire and New Mexico both appear to be toss ups right now.

If Kerry wins Ohio, Loses Iowa, and holds on to all the other Gore states, he will win.

If Kerry wins Ohio, wins the gore states other then Iowa and and New Mexico, he can still win by picking up NH(which appears more likely then not).

All this does'nt take into account Florida, which I think Kerry has as good of a chance as winning as the Pres does.

Both pres bush and Kerry are worried right now, With battleground states this close no one really knows who will win, but in my biased opinion we have the edge in the battle ground states for these reasons.

1)The job ACT did in registering new voters, getting out abseentee ballots, and the huge budget they have for getting out the vote.

2)Youth Vote.- all the evideance points to this age group will be voting in a higher perentage then it did 4 years ago, this is the age bracket that Kerry does best in. Remember: All polls weight for Age groups- none of them to the best of my knowledge are taking into consideration in there polls an increase in the youth vote.

Anyone got info on what internal K/E polls are showing about Wisconsin and Iowa? With the news on PA and Ohio looking as if we'll win there, we just need to hold the two troublesome states of Wisconsin and Iowa. Will we do it?

GDoyle

Assuming OH and PA go to Kerry, as well as MN, MI and NM (all Gore states), then Kerry needs just one of FL, WI and IA. Bush would need all three of them to get to 271. Plus AR is not guaranteed red. Clinton could swing it.

I still haven't given up hope for North Carolina and West Virginia.


Best Case scenario has Kerry sweeping the Mid West (sans Ind.) and winning big in ACC country - Florida, NC , Virginia and WV.

Check this Diary from Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/21/235645/09

It's a very good analysis of Iowa.

We might have a situation where just before midnight on election day Kerry is stuck at 267 Electoral Votes ( having carried Ohio ) but is waiting on the final results from the three "too close to call" States.. Florida (27) , Wisconsin (10) and Iowa (7) ! Kerry would only have to win one of those remaining States to win. Bush stuck at 227 Electoral Votes would need to win all three.Regardless, Kerry will rack up huge popular vote margins in New York, California and Illinois totally negating big Bush margins in many of the smaller Red States.

As I look at the electoral map, Kerry will take the northeast and mid-Atlantic states, along with the Pacific coast and Hawaii and he leads in Ohio and will almost certainly win Michigan. If he wins Wisconsin that will do it. But Wisconsin is hard. If he does not win there he needs to win both New Mexico and Iowa. The prospects there look mixed at the moment. We have a long way to go.
JY

If you've seen the latest Wisconsin polls it's a dead heat - Bush -0.7 average. But all this means is that turnout will be critical.

I live in Colo. and I've never seen so many Kerry-Edwards stickers. No wonder Colo. is almost within the margin of error. Bush is buying large chunks of campaign ads here - and the Swift Boat Veterans for Obvious Lies are paying enormous sums for ads featuring right wing generals and other grim looking veterans saying that Kerry can't be trusted. I don't know how effective these ads are but they at least have better production values than the ridiculous low budget looking "Kerry's a librul, librul, librul" ads from the RNC.

None of these commercials seems to be very good to me, but I'm not a fundamentalist conservative, so I don't know how they'll play on election day.

Clearly, Bush is banking on revving up the hard right. There doesn't seem to be much effort to present any positive Bush message that will sway swing voters at least in the last week.

Kerry has countered with very positive ads about what he'd do about jobs and prescription drugs. the comparison couldn't be more stark.

The very fact that Colorado media here is being so heavily targeted by Bush, despite a 2-1 Republican registration advantage is not good news for Bush. I know he has a lot of money, but I can't believe he expected to be contesting Colorado with big media buys at this point in the campaign.

RE: Wisconsin (I am a Badger resident): One facter I haven't seen mentioned in any of the many policitical websites that I've been trolling for the last 10+ months: The state-wide effect of Tammy Baldwin in CD2 (Madison, very liberal). In 1998, Sen Feingold barely won re-election against a well-funded right-winger (Mark Neuman), and many attribute this to the GOTV of Rep Baldwin and her very devoted followers. A very well-informed and conservative friend of mine with contacts in the Wis Rep party has told me, with much chagrine, that Baldwin is the most effective politician in Wisconsin. She gets thousands and thousands of people to vote in the Dane Cty area, and they vote overwhelmingly democratic. They love her and come out in force. They did in 98, they did in 00, and as long as she's on the ballot, they will in 04. A few other factors in Wis: (1) Gwen Moore is running in Milw for congress, and will be the first African American congressperson from Wis. Her candidacy will likely attract a lot of voters in the Milw urban area (2) I've heard that Feingold volunteers have been told to go work for Kerry --- he's up by around 20 pts in some polls, and they feel confident enough to send their workers elsewhere (3) Wis doesn't have a ton of evangelicals. It's got quite a lot of white Catholics, which are not a dependable R voter group. Having said all this, I must admit to some insecurity about Wis. I think it'll go Kerry, but it's no shoe in. Guess that's why he's spent so much time here. He was in Milw 10-22, and will be in Gr Bay 10-25.

The three midwestern states--IA, MN, WI--could still pose problems for K-E even if they win PA and OH. As 2000 results showed, there were just too many states that were decided by <1%. It's not hard to imagine Kerry winning Ohio by 2-3-4%--due to time spent there, commercials, demographics, luck, etc. but losing IA and WI by 1% each--for similar idiosyncratic reasons. Clearly I hope not. But we can't just assume that Kerry will keep adding states to his columns based on the most optimistic scenario, without considering that it's equally plausible that 1-2 states might get lost in the process. In short, it's still far too close for my tastes. T.J.

Actually, I doubt Bush will carry more than one and possibly none of the Iowa, Wisconsin, Minn triangle. But the Repubs are poised to STEAL Ohio for sure. Florida you can simply bank on being stolen by the Repubs if necessary.
I understand there have been a shortage of lawn signs in the N Midwest. That apparently matters out there. I hope that has been rectified.

HERE ARE SOME IDEAS FOR ADS IN THE SWING STATES< WHICH AREN"T THAT EXPENSIVE TO RUN IN NORTHERN MIDWEST:

IDEEEZ:
First, on the Sinclair thing. It wasn't aired where I live, at least not on TV schedule, but I did get a copy of the transcript of "Stolen Honor". Shameless propaganda that apparently has Kerry's testimony about what was said at Winter Soldier's conference out of context so it seems as if Kerry is saying these things as if he'd observed them. And people are starting to speak as if he had claimed to have witnessed them himself on the internet(s).
Problem is, all the fuss about the program is only more likely to make more people watch it. What progressives really would do in an authentically DEMOCRATIC arena is to push to have ANY similarly sized network broadcast an hour special with clips of 9/11, including the sections of the quotes from Rice and Powell from 2001, Bush going to a photo op AFTER hearing about the first plane striking the towers, and then sitting there for 7 minutes after hearing about the second, the Cheney interview etc. See what THAT does to Bush's poll ratings! Really both tactically and in principle it is better to have MORE speech than suppress bad speech -- at least for authentic progressive interests. And if none of the networks will air that equal to Sinclair's juggernaut, then THAT instead of the Stolen Honor garbage should be the focus of protest.

Another strategic must is the continuing bleeding stemming from the tsunami of protestations since the Matt Bai highbrow demagogy in the Oct 10 Sunday NY Times Mag. Not just Morris Oct 12 "Nuisance Nonsense" that magnified the sophisticated and subtle distortions of Bai, but an enire cottage industry of columns following the 'soft on terror' line -- and it is regularly cited by Bush out on the stump. Kerry's speech in Waterloo Iowa was a mere token response, like his response to the flipflop spin, which although no longer a focus of the campaign is still believed according to Democracy Corps (Carville & Co) by 60% of the public. Kerry, to win, needs a MAJOR speech on terrorism, insisting clearly that Bush has failed, as he did in Iowa, but directly confronting the distortions of his position and specifying the key omissions and distortions in Bai's article, but also columnists like Morris are just waiting to be exposed and debunked as liars. (Automatic points AND news coverage. Seriously, does ANYONE really like Dick Morris? It's like having Linda Tripp as a target. And the speech should be at a central place like Georgetown or U Miami & followed by a series of questions and a press conference and a press release on terrorism.
Kerry would also need to run a good ad campaign. Living in Mass, I don't see many. The ones I've seen from both sides aren't too powerful, though the windsurfing one might have some effect. Here's several suggestions, although they may already already be being done:
First, people in swing states are inundated with ads. Short ads that merely poke negatives or appeal, like one I saw on the internet, to the grief of a woman over her brother when Bush jokes about WMDs aren't going to win people over in an 'ad-thick' environment. They need to make voters think Hmmmm if they're undecided.
Longer ads that play less often, but explain things would be more effective, unless just trying to strike a chord.
First idea: "Playing Chicken Little?" would flash those words and explain why Bush's policies might result in a draft. Kerry's explanations in the debates were actually weak -- it's just that Bush was worse. It needs to be explained by someone expert in the draft, introduced as such, that a draft need not be specifically for military service. There could be a two year draft with "voluntary" exemption for those going for one year in the military, and extra benefits. Thus a greater squeeze produces more "volunteers" for the all-volunteer army. And building 14 permanent military bases in Iraq can have another authoritative person explaining that Bush's expansive view of getting US deeper into quagmire in Iraq instead of merely seeking stability means a greater likelihood of the draft. Make it so the Bush people are outraged, and then it will be a controversy, to greater political benefit!
2) Social Security -- start with clip of Alan Greenspan (explaining who he is) saying social security benefits need to be cut. Brief discussion, possibly from academic about rising deficit and contribution that tax cuts to rich and estate tax cuts mean, and aren't opposed by Greenspan. Close with quote on screen flashed from Oct 17 NY Times magazine about privatization and Medicare.
"They aren't going to fill that multiTRILLION dollar hole in Social Security without having Cost of Living adjustments in Social Security in nonelection years not keep up with inflation. And that can cut X% in real terms after Y years from benefits."

(3) A chart clearly focusing on jobs, showing that 1.9 million job increase in a year boasted about by Bush is LESS than AVERAGE job growth per year over EIGHT years of CLINTON. It barely keeps up with growth of job market. And economic indicators have been lagging now for four months (graph on screen and comment from economist) Kerry saying -- "Creating Jobs has never been this Administration's priorities. Helping his wealthiest backers is Bush's priority -- NOT YOUR JOBS. That's why YOU need to vote Democratic"

Finally, an ad using the footage from Fahrenheit 9/11 of Clarke's interview, running a minute and a half, ending with the comment -- "Americans need to think hard about who's REALLY better on terror for America" . The ad would be expensive as long (in Midwest, Florida and SW) but worth every penny of it.

But I still think machine politics is a better predictor than the polls. This is the kind of WINNING strategy for the Democrats. And the DNC should tie these issues (other than the terror one)-- certainly the Social Security and Economic ones, to Congressional races as well. Economics will drive Congressional races, terrorism more important in prez.
-----------------------------
Sorry that's long but people asked for IDEAS -- and these (other than a MASSIVE GOTV) are the winning strategy at this point, I think

Speaking of Ohio, this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/politics/campaign/23vote.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=b3506ec97533d07e&hp&ex=1098590400&partner=homepage

In the NYT today describes Republican plans to place recruits at the polls to question the credentials of those voters they find suspicious.

Here is one line out of the article: "Among other things, he said, the recruits will be taught how to challenge mentally disabled voters who are assisted by anyone other than their legal guardians. In previous elections, he said, bus drivers who had taken group-home residents to polling places often helped them vote."

This is so evil. These people have nothing to do with democracy. Scary.

Mady

Unless kerry does manage to win any 2 of Iowa, Wisconsin or Minnesota, he'll lose. I can't believe Minnesota is trending for Bush.

I'm not too worried about Minnesota. It was close last time because Nader got 5 percent.

Also, in Wisconsin Nader got 3.6% (94,000 votes) in 2000, and Gore won by 5000 votes. Regardless of the polls that 's a LOT of ground for Bush to pick up.

Another thing. Gwen Moore will probably be elected the first African American Congresswoman in Wisconsin history and that's expected to boost black turnout in Milwaukee, especially after an acrimonious mayoral battle where the black candidate lost.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/sep04/259314.asp

Turnout is the key in Wisconsin but I think the Democrats are in good shape.

It's all about Wisconsin. It's virtually impossible for Bush to overcome the loss of PA and OH without WI. If we lose WI ... then we must win both IA and NM.

I'm gonna be mighty pissed if we get OH and still lose...

Just saw on CNN that Bush has NOT visited Ohio since October 2.

Further, the GOP is concerned that Bush has been "home for dinner" 3 times this week. They are worried that he's not holding night rallies.

The Poll numbers are the "Best Case" scenerio for Bush.

This is due to how Pollsters determine "Likely Voters".

In past elections, Republicans were far more likely to vote (by 2 to 1).

If you count Registered Voters instead of Likely Voters, Kerry gains 3 to 5 points in most states.

Polls show that College Students are overwhelmingly engaged and run for Kerry (58 vs. 37).. Plus, they think turnout is going to be high, but pollsters are not taking this into consideration.

The newly registered voters run in Kerry's favor too, but Pollsters don't count them because they don't how they will turn out.

The "Cell Phone" voters leans toward kerry and aren't counted. (I'm one)

Remember: The Gallop version of "Likely Voters" are 85% white, and 75% make over $75,000

These polls are "Best Case" for Bush. Pollsters don't know what the turnout is actually going to be (since this is a one-of-a-kind election). Because of this, they assume a conservative voter turn out.

If the pollsters favor Bush by just 0.3% on each of these issues, the "win" column will go to Kerry in most swing states.

I agree with all of you about Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. I looked around. In Reagan v. Mondale, Mondale only carried one state, Minnesota... he lost all other 49. In Bush v. Dukakis, Dukakis barely got more, but he carried Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. He only carried 10 states, and his support in this region matched New York and Massachusetts. I figure if Dukakis was able to get these states, Kerry has to. He's doing a lot better.

Also, I read that in Iowa there have been 344,000 absentee ballots requested, and Dems outnumber republicans 4 to one. 2,000,000 are registered in Iowa right now, so I did the match, and its 14% that's not considered in the polls. Don't know what effect this might have, but I hope it does. I'm not sure how new voter registration is doing in Wisconsin, but it seems the polls are exactly tied around 47% there.

I take it, optimistically, that EDM would argue that this year RV's = LV's, unlike in most election years, when LV models have had some relevance. That would be very encouraging, since Kerry's RV numbers have looked quite good for some time. It seems to me that in 2004, pretty much everybody who can is going to vote, plus a lot more who never have in the past.

I just voted early in Austin, and there were many others voting too. I wonder if our pollsters may be missing another big possibility--that Texas may be a whole lot closer than anyone has assumed? Personally, I've been thinking Bush's 59% from 2000 might go down as far as 54% or 55% this year; now, I'm wondering if it may be even closer than that. Then again, maybe I'm dreaming...

I am certain that the exclusive usage of cellular phones is skewing pollsters' results. Here is a personal example, my own circle of friends and family, all whom are voting for Kerry. My wife and I have a cell phone only (2). My ex-wife (1), my twenty-year-old daughter (1), her boyfriend (1), her two best friends (2), my close friend who is Latino (1), my close friend who is African-American (1), her husband (1). That's 10 people who are very close to me who are certain to vote. Further, all of us are currently in a low economic bracket, and four of us did not vote in the 2000 election. We would NEVER be contacted, and would not be considered LIKELY voters even if we were.

Basically, it does come down to WI and IA, if Kerry wins Ohio.

If Kerry wins Ohio, he needs to hold onto ONE out of Wisc. and Iowa in order to win the election, assuming he holds onto all the other Gore states.

Kerry has 243 + 20 for Ohio.

Add Iowa (7) and that's 270.
Add Wisconsin instead (10) and that's 273.

New Hampshire is looking good for him too, but it matters less; that would change it to a 274 or 277 electoral vote count. He needs one of those two states.

Of course if he wins in Florida the entire thing is moot, but I'm wary of that.

Someone help me refine this seasonal metaphor :

It's the bottom of the 9th. The Kerry Fighting Blue Donkeys are behind by 2 runs with none out and Ohio and Pennsylvania on 2nd and third. Bush's bullpen is getting thin, with closer Karl "Greaseball" Rove visibly tiring. Kerry fans are on their feet as usually reliable but currently slumping Minnesota steps to the plate. Wisconsin is in the on deck circle, but Kerry's braintrust may decide to pinch hit Iowa instead, both batters having nerve-wrackingly inconsistent stats. If one of them can't put it away, Florida, who led the league in both homers and strikeouts, would be next up, with a chance to end it the series' seventh game one way or the other.

My prediction? I think I'll have another beer. (Swing state volunteers, please excuse my slurred speech as I call to cheer you on).

I live in Minnesota, and have a sense that Kerry will pull it out here. Turnout is critical, and I think this year the DFL has its act together.

2002 was a terrible year for the DFL, and the disaster was the result of Paul Wellstone's death in the plane crash. For all sorts of good reasons, the whole GOTV effort had been centralized in the Wellstone Campaign, and with his death, all that had been planned just fell apart. By law no Wellstone money could be spent on GOTV, and all the arrangements had to be re-built from scratch, and there was just not time to do it -- and most Wellstone Workers were in such deep grief it was very difficult to get them out. The courts ruled that absentee ballots already cast had to be re-done -- and the Wellstone Campaign had done a huge absentee ballot effort. We had to actually have a state convention and nominate a new candidate -- Mondale. So drawing any electorial pattern from what happened in 2002 is a huge mistake. Remember, Paul was 8-9 points ahead of Coleman when that plane crashed.

Turnout is what will be critical here -- and virtually anyone can vote because we have same day registeration at the polls -- so the ground game of getting young people and less than likely voters to the polls on election day is what really counts. The combination of Ventura and Winona La Duke (Nader's 200 VP) coming out for Kerry last week may move some -- but I put more dice on the decision of Elmer Anderson, a former moderate Republican Governor in his 90's, coming out for Kerry to move Moderate Republicans who have been profoundly alienated by the Wingnut Republicans in recent years. He may influence about 5-10% of the Republican Voters.

Phil M. wrote:

"I am certain that the exclusive usage of cellular phones is skewing pollsters' results. Here is a personal example, my own circle of friends and family, all whom are voting for Kerry. My wife and I have a cell phone only (2). My ex-wife (1), my twenty-year-old daughter (1), her boyfriend (1), her two best friends (2), my close friend who is Latino (1), my close friend who is African-American (1), her husband (1). That's 10 people who are very close to me who are certain to vote. Further, all of us are currently in a low economic bracket, and four of us did not vote in the 2000 election. We would NEVER be contacted, and would not be considered LIKELY voters even if we were."

Posted by Phil M. at October 23, 2004 01:36 PM
=================================

Phil,

You and the people you described are the reason I say we will win by 5 million or more this year.

Kerry is way ahead if all the real voters are counted. The enthusiasm for him is real, and the commitment of Americans to rid the country of this embarrassing plague that is Bush and his group.

a note I posted on Kos that I think applies to here and the minority turn out- please let me know if my n umbers are wrong- thx:

Go back to 2000, and look at the polling there for why these issues related to race are not minor issues for the Dems. I will put it in perspective- FL- there are I believe an estimated 1 million eligible African American voters. If I am not wrong, 52 percent (I am not certain of the number) voted with 90 percent of that vote going to Gore. (.52)(.90)(1 million voters) equals (assuming no supression) roughly 468,000 votes (of course with the suppression and felon lists and the like it was less than this). A modest increase of 5 percent to 57 percent of the AA equals an increase to 513,000 or 45,000 votes additional votes.
The New York Times article that came out several weeks ago regarding the AA vote indicates that several places, especially in AA sections, have seen an increase of voter registration of like 60 percent above 2000. In some places this means an increase from 75,000 to 120,000 new registrants. I expect the turn out despite my conservative estimate of 57 percent to be at 60 percent due to increased registration and GOTV (also I have seen some articles making similar guestimations). Again, do the math (.6)(.9)(1 m)= 540,000 or an increase of 72,000 votes. In a tight election of 1 percentage pt difference (if the polls are right). Let's assume again a great turn out of 60 percent of the eligible voting population or roughly 8 million voters for FL. This means a 1 percent going toward Kerry that would not be going to him otherwise. You can also do the same caculuations for Muslims which again are voting block that Bush is losing- I believe the estimates are at 500 thousand for Florida? The last time 80 percent voted for Bush-this time that trend has reversed so that it is almost exactly the opposite. Conservatively I have been seeing 70 percent for Kerry. (.7)(60 k voted in 2000- (note there has been an increase of activism post 9/11 and there is a total voting pop of above 100 k based on pop trends)- so again being conservative let say he gets 70 k this year) but assuming that it is that is a net of 49,000 additional votes or an addition of a little over a half a percentage point.

I can do the same shifts with the latin population- which is now less old style Cuban (rock rib Rep types and now includes the more Dem leaning Puerto Rican populations and younger less idealogical cubans).

Incidentally,tThe one poll showing less AA support has sense been debunked as a right wing pollster with an agenda- Jessie Jackson did an article about it right after it came out. The same pollster made the exact same prediction in 2000, and the eventual turnout was 90 percent. They had claimed in the poll a 75 percent turnout in favor of Gore as they did again this year in the last 2 weeks for Kerry.

Another key element, unlike Gore, Kerry is not taking these votes for granted- despite the attempts at supression it will not work on the level that it worked in 2000 b/c unlike then we are fighting it.

Voter intensity: I point you again to the NY Times article (I could also point out personal anecdotal evidence, but wills stick to the newspaper to make this more objective). The AA base is fired up in Florida- 1) 2000 wasn't the first time that their rights have been surprised 2) They like most Americans feel like there is more at stake this election 3) 2000 REALLY REALLY pissed a lot of folks off (I am living up in NY and we are talking about it- I grew up in Virginia and they were talking about it. One old biddy- 80 years old when asked by an ACT volunteer did she need help to get to the polls- answered- no- b/c if it were six feet of snow and she had the walk- she was going to vote 4) National spotlight by black leadership- Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Bill Clinton (which is the reason he is going there), the Congressional Black Caucus - they are all going there.

As I mention above there is an intense interest among muslims who are pro Kerry- an extremely conservative religious group of Muslim conservatives have come out in support of Kerry despite innitally doing the "well we want make an endorsement routine"

When it is all said and done we are looking at a 2 or 3 pt difference in the polls in FL and that is huge in a race this close where the polls mostly show a tie- some show Bush up, some Kerry- but I think the reality tends to be a tie.

and that tie does not include the minority undercount, and I have not even touched in the issue of younger voters. So please realize that these things are not insignificant and please take the time to do the same research that I have done- it just took a little google search.

HERE ARE SOME EASY WAYS WE CAN HELP GET BUSH-CHENEY OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE - IT'S A GRASSROOTS EFFORT - JOIN IN AND PLEASE TAKE THE FIRST STEP TOWARD MAKING A DIFFERENCE BY PASSING IT ON!

http://www.helpkerrywin.com/

I'm from Minnesota and Kerry will win here. We are doing a massive GOTV effort on election day. I've been in politics since the days of Hubert Humphrey and I've never seen anything like it. People who have never been involved in politics in their lives are coming out of the woodwork.

I'm also optimistic about Wisconsin and Iowa. Remember, all three of these midwestern states were won narrowly by Gore, but Nader did very well in each of them, around 5%. This year I'd be surprised if he gets 2%.

The news on Arkansas is great, showing Kerry and Bush tied. Also in N.C. and VA latest polls showing
Kerry behind between 2 & 3 percent in LV's. There have been 600,000 new voters registered in N.C
this year. 100,000 in the counties where Duke and
UNC are located, a very progressive area which
makes up part of RTP. Early voting last week had
college students waiting in line for 3 hours on the first day of early voting. A large turnout in N.C.
and Va could swing these these states to Kerry.
Both states are on the verge of voting with the other Mid-Atlantic states versus sourthern states.
These 3 states along with NH, Maine and Nevada
may be a surprise to a lot of pundits on November
2, 2004.