Good on ya', mate!!!

Another prediction that America's streets will be flowing red on election day? I think you may be underestimating the fraud factor, but your optimism is most welcome.

Gads, I live in one of your only blue states and it's blue, let me tell you. Your comments about Patty Murray match my sentiments but it gets worse: I live in Jim McDermott's district. It's VERY lonely sometimes to have red state sensibilities here.
BTW, love your 'blog: found it through Vodkapundit.
All best and keep writing, it's very good.

I too am in a Blue state, and mine is worth a full 55 EV's.

Did you see what Jim Mcdermott said the other day?

http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/002941.html#002941

Thanks, (I think!) for the link to yet more of his inanity. Sigh. It's just so typical.

Well Frank, I wish I could be as optimistic as you in regards to Wisconsin (where I live). Based on my TV viewing the last two days - Kerry is campaigning HARD here... I'd say there are at least 2 Kerry commercials for every Bush commercial... and based on recent polls, Wisconsin is definitely in play.

( Im gonna steal a comment I just made at vodkapundit...)

My bet is that standard methods of polling are useless in the modern age. The polls of the last few elections show repeatedly that they are less than effective predictors of final results.

If the polls were effective, President Al Gore would have won 310 EV's and there would be a Senator Stickland in Colorado and Senator Mondale in Minnesota and Govenor Davis would still be in office in California. The house and senate would be solidly in the hands of the Democrats. None of this is true, but if you use polls as predictors this would be the world you would expect to see.

The distributed age is here, and with it a whole new method has to be devised to sample the electorate in an accurate fashion. Add to this, an aging electorate raised more on the Reagan revolution than the legacy of FDR, one that continues to trend conservative despite polls that say it should be otherwise.

The distrbuted age has given us 500 channels of information and a wide and diverse internet. Newspapers that once served as the 'fountain of accepted information' now serve only as the best place to find coupons for Target and wal-mart, their content is largely ignored.

Newspapers and their surrogates on Television used to set the tone and tempo of american politcs, in the distributed age they are no longer capable of providing this service.

The world has changed, its moved under our feet, and most of us dont even know it yet.

The big loser in this election will not be Kerry or Bush, but the world of corporate media for which Polls serve as only one of a host of tools that they use not to determine opinion as much as make it.

Dennis Prager began enumerating the list of losers should Bush prevail. Their loss will be directly proportional to the amount of the loss:

Michael Moore
Hollywood Celebrities As Political Commentators
Terry McAuliffe
CBS News & Dan Rather
NY Times
Angry Left
Politics Of Personal Destruction
Vote Early, Vote Often
OBL
Iraqi Insurgency & al-Sadr
Old Europe & the EU
UN
Palestinians

That's all for now. Anyone else want to add in?

The big loser in this election will not be Kerry or Bush, but the world of corporate media for which Polls serve as only one of a host of tools that they use not to determine opinion as much as make it.

I agree with the basic premise of your assertion, even though I think it's a bit hyperbolic to suggest that corporate media will be the "big loser" in this election. If anything, the biggest losers will be the American people, divided almost perfectly in the center, principally thanks to the media's infatuation with pitting partisan hacks against one another and passing it off as "news".

The right's taken advantage of the popularity of pundits, and they even created their own news network to disseminate their talking points. Fox's popularity, and the right's persistent accusations toward the so-called "liberal media", have even influenced more traditionally objective networks to give conservative perspective unequal face time in an attempt to appear more "fair".

What we're left with is a media out of balance, in which face time for partisan pundits screaming about political minutiae outweighs actual, factual reporting of important issues that affect people's everyday lives. Barbs traded between the candidates over Iraq garner more coverage then their policies regarding the environment or the economy. More often than not, the right counters even the most unrefutable facts so that they can keep the focus off issues that their opposition is strong on. And still, the media gives them exposure because they don't want to be perceived as "liberal". Give me a break.

Regardless of who wins, it's unlikely that the media will change. We'll either be subject to a parade of talking heads claiming Kerry stole the election through litigation and trying to undermine his efforts to move this country in the right direction, or a bunch of pundits declaring Bush's win as an edict from the American people to pursue 4 more years of misguided foreign and domestic policy. The majority of people that get their news from TV will remain uninformed and without perspective regarding a single issue that affects their lives and their country as a whole.

As pessimistic as I am about the American people being able to make an informed decision when they vote on November 2nd, I think you're going to be very disappointed when the results are known. Millions of young people will be voting for the first time in their lives, incensed by Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and a $200b war overseas, the debt for which will be paid by their tax dollars and their social security benefits. They're disgusted that this administration has consistently sided with polluters and placed industry lobbyists at the head of important regulatory industries that are supposed to be protecting our environment from the very companies that they used to represent. They reject the notions that sexual descrimination should be written into our constitution and that beneficial social programs are simply "entitlements" that encourage government dependence. They recognize that governmental regulation can be beneficial when it protects people from the greedy self-interest of wealthy corporations, and they know that as long as there's a president in the White House who values corporate donations over the needs of the American people, we will never have as great a country as our founding fathers had aspired to create.

And that's just the young people! Many elderly Americans are furious that Bush supports the prohibition of drug re-importation from Canada, and that he signed Medicare legislation that outlawed the practice. Elderly veterans are angry that Bush sought to cut their benefits, and those of injured vets returning from Iraq. They're increasinly concerned with the burgeoning cost of healthcare, and that the President has tried to blame its rise on trial lawyers and medial malpractice insurance, rather than standing up to the drug companies and allowing the government to negotiate lower prices. People that aren't elderly yet are worried (with reason) that they won't receive any Social Security when they need it.

And regardless of the media's inability to expose this Administration for the cynical, dishonest, irresponsible group that it is, people know what's up. And you're going to see that reflected in the results of this Tuesday's election. And you can bet your ass that if the electoral college doesn't support the intentions of the popular votership to oust Bush from office, you can kiss it goodbye. Then we'll see whether or not pollsters can accurately forecast any election in which the country of a whole has a say.

Shawn,

Why are you here?
Are my thoughts a surprise to you?
Have I lead you astray with my postings?
What is it that you hope to accomplish?
You comment is well thought out and manages to be clear, but I feel you've wasted it on the likes of people like me.

Go read my post on discourse.

You are welcome anytime, but that was one hell of alot of effort for very little potential payoff.

I live in the People's Republic of Daley, formerly known as Illinois. I am seeing a disturbing trend I do not see anyone addressing in any prognostications. All of the "battleground" states have indications of massive vote fraud. IIRC Franklin County has some 60,000 more registered voters than the 2002 Cencus plus estimated growth has as an absolute max. Run statewide, I am not sure Reagan's vote totals, the second time, would offset that kind of fraud numbers. Our best hope is that enough "sKerry safe" states vote red to make up the difference.

The Horserace Blog (http://jaycost.blogspot.com/) has worked some voodoo on figuring out the polls and is calling it for Bush as well.

"Generally, given Bush's strong position in IA, WI and NM -- Kerry would have to run the gamut of the big states. He'd have to win OH, PA and FL. If Bush wins any of these, the game is over. Given these polls, Kerry has a 1.85% chance of doing that -- which is to say, he has virtually no chance.

All of this strikes me as very consistent with a difference between the candidates of 2%-3%. If Bush wins the election by 2.17%, which is what my average currently shows, we would expect him to get between 276-300 Electoral Votes. In other words, we would expect Bush to win 2 of the 3 "Big 3" states. Right now, that looks likely to happen."

Oregon? You think Bush will take Oregon?

That is confidence!

Rhode Island? A state Bush lost by 29.1 points last time? Where the last 5 polls (listed on Dales' site) show Kerry with an average lead of 20? That's crazy talk.

Hey Dean,

He thinks Bush will take Rhode Island.

That is confidence.

Frank, Bush may do very well, but I'd put money down that he won't take Rhode Island.

Frank, you are by far the most optimistic of any of the national EV maps I've seen. Nobody else is giving Bush even barely 300, yu give him RI, NJ and Delaware. I still believe tomorrow is going to be one tough night.

I see no purpose in pessimism. Ray Fair of Yale is never off more than 1.5% in his projections. He is saying Bush is at 56% this year. He's a Rabid Kerry supporter. Tradesports and betfair are both showing Bush above 53%.

Bush and the GOP only have to hold what they won last time, there are no effective Kerry campaigns in any of the states that Bush won last time,all the action is in states that Gore won last time.
I cannot accept that Pennsylvania, and New Jersey will vote against Bush given their impact on 9/11. I still think New York may surprise us all, but even I have my limits, just so you dont think I didnt consider my vote. ( by-the-by - I know lots of manhattanites that are voting for Bush you can poll them till the moon falls from the sky and they will tell the pollsters "Kerry", but I know alot of cops in Boston and New York that are voting for Bush. )

If thats not enough to make you optimistic, think back to Iowa caucuses when we were all told by the very same press that is pushing a certain Kerry victory that there was such enthusiasm for Howard Dean that Kerry should just go home. Come election day, Dean evaporated.

Just like I expect Kerry to do.

My hands are starting to shake. I just hope you're right.

Wow! 381? I just don't see it. There are too many *moderates* for Kerry (see a sample list on my home page). I predict Bush 296. That's every state he won in 2000 (except NH, which I think may be contrarian) plus the states that were extremely close: Iowa, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. Key factors: voters don't trust Kerry on foreign policy, and GOP GOTV.

Details and 2000 data at pajamasphere.com/election2004/prediction.html

For those who are predicting a major swing to Bush: add NH plus the remaining 3 swing states (MI, MN, PA). That's 348. (I'm extremely skeptical of polls in Hawaii, though add 4 if they're on target. I also doubt that NJ is actually in play.)