Slashdot Mirror

Exactly. Folks who live in the dark-colored states essentially have no say in the electoral college; "your" electors have already been selected. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans need your vote. So throw your vote to a party that can actually make use of it. The Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitutionists, the Natural Lawyers, the Socialists, etc. all need individual votes to gain credibility. If you have any principles at all, there's gotta be a smaller party that you like better than (at least) one of the Big Two, so give them your vote to add to their resume. Even if you live in Texas and like the idea of smaller government and lower taxes, vote for Badnarik instead of Bush. Or if you live in California and like the idea of a better safety net and more equal rights, vote for Nader instead of Kerry. Or vice versa. Or whatever. Voting instead for one of the Big Two in one of the "already decided" states would actually be throwing your vote away.

A good summary can be found here

ABC, American Viewpoint, CBS/NYT, Gallup, Harris, Hart, Marist College, Opinion Dynamics, Princeton Survey, Pew, Newsweek, Bloomberg, CNN/USA Today, and Fox all predicted Bush.

So the polls lean which way again?

That forcast, while possible, is not blindingly obvious one way or another to me, yet. Unless you're one of those assuming that George's brother figured out how to rig it last time, and will figure it out again?

There's another group too, *totally* unaccounted for by the polls: Americans living overseas. Here's a couple of factoids:

- There are currently about 5 million Americans of voting age living abroad. Their opinons are not showing up in any of the polls, but they can still vote absentee. And they are likely to vote in much higher numbers this time.

- Americans with passports are supporting Kerry 3-to-1 (don't remember the reference; may have been mentioned on NPR).

I have it on good authority that overseas voters are registering in huge numbers this time, maybe double or triple 2000. I was told that the number of people who showed up at the Democratic party caucus in England earlier this year was 10 times what it was in 2000, ditto in other countries. Americans overseas vote in the state they last lived in, even if that was decades ago. There are about 7 million overseas Americans and probably about 5 million are over 18. In Florida, it was the overseas absentee ballots that swung the election. I believe that something like 8% are military, but the rest are students, teachers, artists, government workers, business executives, spouses of foreign nationals, missionaries, retirees, and more. What is significant here is that these people represent a lot of votes and are not included in any of the polls. Nobody knows if they are largely Democrats or Republicans, but their votes could be one of the big surprises of this election. if anyone has any actual data (as opposed to speculation) on this group, I'd be interested.

Not according to http://www.electoral-vote.com/, which has PA and IL both in play with less than a 4% lead for either candidate. NY is the largest still less-than-solid state in number of EVs. All the rest of yor list, though, if you look, are also less than 4%.

I live in Madison, WI, and in the last week we've seen (or will see this weekend): Bush's wife, Edwards' wife, Kerry, Nader, and Cobb -- all in Madison (or a suburb). Cheney's and Bush have been in the state at least 3 times each (all on separate occasions).

Also, are you sure about Bush having a lock in MN?

www.electoral-vote.com has Kerry up by 9% in the latest statewide poll. Minnesota is the state with the longest running streak of voting for the Democratic candidate in the Presidential election. If there would be any reason for Bush to stay out it would be because he DOESN'T have a lock on it.

I have a hopeful couple of factoids:

- There are currently about 5 million Americans of voting age living abroad. Their opinons are not showing up in any of the polls, but they can still vote absentee. And they are likely to vote in much higher numbers this time. (this is from here; see direct quote below since the text may move off the page.)

- Americans with passports are supporting Kerry 3-to-1 (don't remember the reference; may have been mentioned on NPR).

You do the math. :)

I have it on good authority that overseas voters are registering in huge numbers this time, maybe double or triple 2000. I was told that the number of people who showed up at the Democratic party caucus in England earlier this year was 10 times what it was in 2000, ditto in other countries. Americans overseas vote in the state they last lived in, even if that was decades ago. There are about 7 million overseas Americans and probably about 5 million are over 18. In Florida, it was the overseas absentee ballots that swung the election. I believe that something like 8% are military, but the rest are students, teachers, artists, government workers, business executives, spouses of foreign nationals, missionaries, retirees, and more. What is significant here is that these people represent a lot of votes and are not included in any of the polls. Nobody knows if they are largely Democrats or Republicans, but their votes could be one of the big surprises of this election. if anyone has any actual data (as opposed to speculation) on this group, I'd be interested.

This site is updated daily to give the predicted electoral vote counts - more informative than the overall popular vote totals. He also covers the Senate races and issues related to polling ingeneral. The site does have a somewhat pro-Kerry viewpoint, but it seems like the poll data is non-partisan ...

Kerry was high then Reagan died and the republicans suddenly become the leading party, then Michael Moore came and the vote changed in favor of Kerry then came the swifboat club and Bush was leading again...

Commission on Presidential Debates

I found this a few months ago and I think it's an awesome little history of how the debates were wrestled from the control of the League of Women's voters. Please read this before complaining about third party candidates entering the debates.

There are more brief histories on Wikipedia and Disinfopedia. If you are at a university with access to bigger encyclopedia that cost money I suggest you poke through the history of the debates on one of those.

The overall lesson you'll learn is that the United States Commission on Presidential Debates is completely unfair to everyone but the two big parties... and how many of us completely agree with either or those?

For those of you who don't like Bush, check here and notice that all the midwestern states that support him are also the larger supporters of Nader. All those complaints that Nader is taking points from Kerry are self-defeating. Those complaints are just causing the conservatives who don't like Bush to vote for him anyway since they really don't like Kerry and they don't believe there's anyone else available since the other options get downplayed so heavily.

America needs debate reform, and that's a requirement before we'll get more parties.

--Matthew

1) Nader did not make the ballot in Oregon, which should strengthen Kerry against Bush quite a bit.

2) Oregon's polls show a trend of Kerry opening a gap, whereas Pennsylvania is trending towards a tie. (Of course, the site maintainer will be the first to say that these projections are not very reliable until October.)

3) Pennsylvania is more populous, which means more electoral votes at stake and more expense to reach the voters.

This Oregonian thinks the money is best spent in Pennsylvania.

1) Nader did not make the ballot in Oregon, which should strengthen Kerry against Bush quite a bit.

2) Oregon's polls show a trend of Kerry opening a gap, whereas Pennsylvania is trending towards a tie. (Of course, the site maintainer will be the first to say that these projections are not very reliable until October.)

3) Pennsylvania is more populous, which means more electoral votes at stake and more expense to reach the voters.

This Oregonian thinks the money is best spent in Pennsylvania.

Oregon is already a Strong Kerry (10% ahead) state, and has 7 electoral votes. Pennsylvania is a Weak Kerry (3% ahead) state, with Bush gaining, and a projected tie on election day, and has 21 electoral votes.

Oregon is already a Strong Kerry (10% ahead) state, and has 7 electoral votes. Pennsylvania is a Weak Kerry (3% ahead) state, with Bush gaining, and a projected tie on election day, and has 21 electoral votes.

Well it's how to political process works right now. The swift boat add is not much better and its the major point who turned the pools around. The convention is no what turned the pools around like some people like to pretend. It began with the add.

This graph has just been bouncing wildly, like people haven't already decided who they will (or won't) vote for. I'm sure that in the end most of them will just let the media decide, then rush to the polls to pass on that decision, to give them a sense of community. Maybe vote for Bush because the president said they should.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/info/graph.html

Indeed,

on August 30th it was:
Kerry 249 Bush 232
http://www.electoral-vote.com/aug/aug30.html

on August 31st:
Kerry 242 Bush 280
http://www.electoral-vote.com/aug/aug31.html

Indeed,

on August 30th it was:
Kerry 249 Bush 232
http://www.electoral-vote.com/aug/aug30.html

on August 31st:
Kerry 242 Bush 280
http://www.electoral-vote.com/aug/aug31.html

Linear regression calls the election for Kerry.

Actually, the data is too unstable to suggest that linear regression could adequately predict Kerry will win. As we keep hearing, it's too close to call. But anyone believing there is an impending Bush landslide has been watching too many Fair & Balanced (TM) infomercials masquerading as Fox News.

Politically, Kerry is a strong finisher, but it's really all going to hang on the fickle mood of the American voter on 2NOV04. There will be an October Surprise (probably several) that will skew it one way or another. I do think Kerry/Edwards will have a major advantage over Bush/Cheney in the debates. Kerry and Edwards are both articulate, and the last four years have provided a lot of substantial issues to discuss. They'll do a lot better in a fact based debate instead of the emotionally charged name calling we've seen the last few months.

Most voters are already confirmed one way or another. It's the small group of undecided voters in a few undecided states that are going to decide this.

Either that, or the US Supreme Court.
:^(