Supposedly, there are some very happy wingers over at Free Republic who noticed an internal of today's
ABC News tracking poll:Nine percent of "likely" voters in the ABC News tracking poll say they've voted for president, either by absentee ballot or early voting, a number that's jumped in the last week. Fifty-one percent say they went for George W. Bush, 47 percent for John Kerry.
Sound like good news for Bush, right? Well, I have done some quick analysis of the states where early voting at polling places (not no fault absentee balloting) is taking place, plus Oregon where all voting is early via mail, and the opposite appears to be true.
Twenty-five states fit this category: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, HI, IN, IA, KS, ME, NE, NV, NM, NC, ND, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT and WV. According to
Dave Leip, in 2000 Bush received 24,464,219 votes in these states, while Gore received 21,029,384. In other words, Bush won 54.0% of the two-party in these states, while Gore only won 46.0%. Thus, if the ABC poll is accurate, Bush is under-performing his 2000 levels by 2-3 points, while Kerry is over-performing Gores level by 1-2 points. This is actually horrendous news for Bush. If Kerry is losing in Republican areas by four points less than Gore was in 2000, then things look very good for Kerry indeed.
Before we get too excited, the margin of error on this subset of the ABC poll was plus or minus eight percent, so a difference of four points might not be significant. Further, some of the voting was done by absentee ballots, which could be from everywhere. However, 51-47 is clearly lower than Bush's margin among early voters in 2000, which according to NAES actually was in the double digits with Bush hovering just above 55%. Further, Kerry's over-performance on Gore among early voters also seems to be real, as Democrats in Florida and Iowa are voting at a rate higher than their share of registered voters. These are definitely reason to be chipper.
Update: I think I have all of the states and vote totals correct now. I think.
Second Update: OK, now I finally have it all striaghtened out. Phew.
Third Update: I stand by my current definitions as posted and I'm not changing things again.
18 Comments