Previous Update (Nov 1): Kerry 298, Bush 231 (image) (excel)
Current Standings (Oct 31): Kerry 283, Bush 246 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Oct 18): Kerry 257, Bush 247 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Oct 11): Kerry 270, Bush 248 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Oct 1): Kerry 254, Bush 280 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Sep 19): Kerry 207, Bush 331 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Sep 10): Kerry 252, Bush 254 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Sep 2): Kerry 242, Bush 280 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Aug 27): Kerry 270, Bush 259 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Aug 23): Kerry 286, Bush 233 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Aug 14): Kerry 327, Bush 211 (image) (excel)
Previous Update (Aug 10): Kerry 307, Bush 231 (image) (excel)
States leaning toward Kerry are shown in blue. States leaning toward Bush are shown in red. The darker the color, the more firmly the polls indicate the state is in the indicated direction. States that are merely outlined in a color are within the poll's margin of error.
This data is gathered from the most recent state polls by a respected polling authority, or for the few states that have no statewide polls, the results from the 2000 election. An Excel spreadsheet with more information, and formulas you can use to play what-if is available above.
I'll be updating this information regularly, up until the election. Feel free to cheer below if your preferred candidate is winning, or to spout off below about how worthless polls are if your preferred candidate is losing. Drysart fucked around with this message on 11-01-2004 at 02:36 PM.
Bush: 48%
Kerry: 45%
Source- Market Solutions (Aug 1)
quote:
Nobody really understood why Drysart wrote:
Arizona's numbers, since you brought them up:Bush: 48%
Kerry: 45%
Source- Market Solutions (Aug 1)
Very interesting. Apparently cocaine has become bigger than I thought.
Excel Spreadsheet: here. Drysart fucked around with this message on 08-10-2004 at 06:37 PM.
In 2k, there were a lot of bush stickers, but no gore stickers.. and bush got elected. I hope this is some indication. :/
Edit: Holy cow, my state lost two electoral votes! Delphi Aegis fucked around with this message on 08-10-2004 at 06:38 PM.
quote:
Delphi Aegis came out of the closet to say:
Edit: Holy cow, my state lost two electoral votes!
Yeah, the state congressional seats were reapportioned in 2001 based on the results of the 2000 Redistricting Census. Each state gets 2 electoral votes, plus one for each Congressional district in the state (there is always at least one, regardless of a state's population). Each Congressional seat roughly corresponds to around 560,000 people.
Edit for phrasing... Demos fucked around with this message on 08-10-2004 at 06:44 PM.
quote:
Delphi Aegis came out of the closet to say:
Quick question.. does this poll likely voters, or people who have voted in an election before?
It depends on who ran the poll. Some are simplistic "Who would you vote for if the election were held today, Bush, Kerry, or Nader?", and some have additional questions asking if they voted in 2000, 1996, if they're planning on voting this year, then they weigh the results accordingly. Some count all adults, some only count registered voters.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
Naimah came out of the closet to say:
It is actually more like 630,000 per congressional seat if memory serves. It seems that I have lost the spread sheet that I used to calculate it though. I know that it is closer to 600,000 then 560,000.
I double checked, yeah, you're right. They represent roughtly 625,000 people. The 560,000 figure I had written down was probably from the 1990 Census.
quote:
Sean came out of the closet to say:
Nader's running again?
Yeah, but he's not officially on the ballot in all states yet. Republican groups are reportedly actually helping his campaign gather the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot for the states he's not yet on the ballot in. I think there are at least a couple states that he's past the ballot deadline for and won't be on the ballot no matter what. Drysart fucked around with this message on 08-10-2004 at 07:12 PM.
quote:
Darius! came out of the closet to say:
What do the numbers mean?
The numbers on the map correspond to how many electoral votes each state has. One for each Congressional seat (435), plus two per state (100), plus 3 for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538 electoral votes.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
In the previous data, Bush had a pretty comfortable 5% lead in Ohio. This update, however, he's lost that lead, to a 48% Kerry/45% Bush/2% Nader split. This is within the margin of error for the poll, so its still anybody's state, but nevertheless, letting the state slip into the Too Close To Call column is a big loss for Bush, he needs those 20 electoral votes -- if Bush were to lose Ohio and Florida, he could win Missouri, West Virginia, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Oregon, Minnesota, and Maine are currently close, but likely to be wins for Kerry in the end, as are Michigan and Pennsylvania. Even if Bush carries Missouri, West Virginia, Iowa, and Wisconsin, he'd still be a few votes behind Kerry, so he'd need to pick up still another state -- possibly Florida, which would leave the final vote totals as 271 to 267.
Another threat to Bush is a referendum on the ballot in Colorado which would cause their electoral votes to be split based on the final vote percentages in the state. This would cost Bush 4 electoral votes.
If you play around with the data a bit, you might be surprised to find out that with the current electoral vote distribution among the states, it is possible for the election to end in a tie. In this case, according to the Constitution, the House of Representatives would choose the President, which, with the Republicans likely to hold a majority there, would almost certainly be a win for Bush. The Senate would choose the Vice-President, which, if the poll trends hold up, will be Democrat controlled, would be a win for Edwards.
Now accepting bribes to vote for Bush.
I don't think any republican has ever won without Ohio.
quote:
Pvednes needs to learn to type:
Blindy: I thought that was a felony.I don't think any republican has ever won without Ohio.
No it isn't! I don't want it be a felony, so it isn't. That's how it works!
Why use red and blue?
quote:
Zair said this about your mom:
No surprise on Illinois being deep blue. The Illinois Republican party couldn't even find someone from Illinois to run for Senate.
Actually they did get that Keyes guy. But his purpose isn't really to win the Senate seat but rather to keep Obama from campaigning for Kerry in other states.
Vote early, and vote often!
quote:
Vise the Stompy said this about your mom:
Actually they did get that Keyes guy. But his purpose isn't really to win the Senate seat but rather to keep Obama from campaigning for Kerry in other states.
quote:
HAYWhy use red and blue?
(Why not red and blue?)
quote:
So quoth Espio Idsavant:
Yea, he should have used neon pink and green or something.(Why not red and blue?)
Yeah I read his sentance to fast and missintrepreted. My apologee
Good news and bad news for Kerry this week, but mostly bad. The Bush campaigns negative ads have started to drag down Kerry's poll numbers in a few states that were previously swung well into the Kerry column. States like California, Michigan, and Florida have all swung into their respective polls' margin of error; Ohio and Missouri have even swung over to the red states, but is still within the margin of error, and Wisconsin is now split even. Most of these are generally considered as swing states, but California being as close as the numbers are is bad news for Kerry.
As far as the good news for Kerry: Colorado, once considered a die-hard Bush state, is exactly 47%/47% now in the latest poll. This wouldn't be a huge victory for Kerry if the referendum on Colorado's ballot passes this November, causing Colorado to split its 9 electoral votes according to its election results. Kerry's lead elsewhere has strengthened in .... well... nowhere.
Expect to see the Kerry campaign spring to life now that their strategy of relying on the Anybody But Bush sentiment is running out of steam. Expect to see the Bush campaign turn up the heat on Kerry to try to depress his numbers further.
quote:
Drysart painfully thought these words up:
Expect to see the Kerry campaign spring to life now that their strategy of relying on the Anybody But Bush sentiment is running out of steam. Expect to see the Bush campaign turn up the heat on Kerry to try to depress his numbers further.
What the hell else does Kerry have?
At this point I'm ready to vote Bush (probably a wasted vote here in Washington) just to see how he's gonna behave knowing he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.
quote:
Drysart had this to say about Punky Brewster:
California being as close as the numbers are
Y'know, my brother got to have dinner with one of the heads of the Republican election committee here in California. When he asked him what the big GOP strategy regarding California was, he responded...
"Try not to be burned in effigy more than twice a week."
I can only imagine that he's shitting himself about now.
Needses to work out the confidence zones...California is not traditionally a marginal constituency.
quote:
Leopold's momma would never want to hear them say:
Y'know, my brother got to have dinner with one of the heads of the Republican election committee here in California. When he asked him what the big GOP strategy regarding California was, he responded..."Try not to be burned in effigy more than twice a week."
I can only imagine that he's shitting himself about now.
Well they did elect a republican governator.
quote:
Blindy had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Well they did elect a republican governator.
He's not a Republican, he's a cybernetic organism, a learning computer. Lashanna fucked around with this message on 08-25-2004 at 01:19 AM.
John Kerry and Jon Stewart together, omg, funny, 
quote:
Pvednes came out of the closet to say:
What were the sample sizes?
The poll's sample size versus the state's population size is already statistically factored into the poll's margin of error. The margin of error is a confidence level that there's a 95% probability that if the poll were expanded to include everyone in the state, it'd fall within the margin of error around the value actually reported by the poll.
Suppose a polling company calls 1000 randomly selected people in a state that is truly divided 50-50, they may, simply by accident, happen to call 520 Democrats and 480 Republicans and announce that Kerry is ahead 52% to 48%. But another company on the same day may happen to get 510 Republicans and 490 Democrats and announce that Bush is ahead 51% to 49%. The variation caused by having such a small sample is called the margin of error and is usually between 2% and 4% for the sample sizes used in state polling. This means that with a margin of error of, say, 3%, a reported 51% really means that there is a 95% chance that the correct number is between 48% and 54% (and a 5% chance that it is outside this range).
In the first above example, with a 3% MoE, the 95% confidence interval for Kerry is 49% to 55% and for Bush 45% to 51%. Since these overlap, we cannot be 95% certain that Kerry is really ahead, so this is called a statistical tie. Nevertheless, the probability that Kerry is ahead is greater than the probability that Bush is ahead, only we cannot be very sure of the conclusion. When the ranges of the candidates do not overlap (i.e., the difference between them is at least twice the margin of error), then we can be 95% certain the leader is really ahead.
The states in white or merely with colored borders on the map should be regarded as tossups no matter who is currently slightly ahead; the results could easily flip in the next poll without a single voter changing his or her mind. Of course, the margin of error can be reduced by using a bigger sample, but that takes longer and costs more money, so most polls opt for 500 to 1000 respondents.
