While I, too, believe there is an outside chance of a Kerry "landslide" I do not think he can get a 1988-like result.

The components of a Kerry "landslide" are victory are Gore+NH+OH+FL.  And it would be a "landslide" even if Kerry doesn't hold NM.

To reject an incumbent during a "war" and especially to reject an incumbent who has had the uncritical support of the mass media for all but a couple weeks out of the last four years, would be an overwhelming rejection.  

I will be satisfied with any victory, but I do hope for the larger margins to solidify that message:  American rejects Bush/Cheney/

I hope you're right, but Florida and Ohio both look about 50/50.  Fortunately, I think Kerry only has to take one.  The Slate analyst, bless his heart, was sharp enough to point out that if the probability is 50 percent in both states, the odds of a split are 3 to 1.  I like that kind of thinking.  Of course, that means the odds of Kerry sweeping are only 1 in 4.  

Well, we were waiting for the inevitable adjustment in the Gallup/Fox polls.  Now they can say not that one week before the election they were off by 10 points but that the night before they were CLOSE TO ALL THE OTHER POLLS. I stress the latter point because I think many of the other polling organizations, Zogby in particular, have essentially admitted they are being conservative in their methodology.  In other words, they are sticking very close to the 2000 data and saying, in essence, "If this were 2000 and the election were held today then  . . .".  This produces a very close outcome because the outcome in 2000 was very close.  But many often then go on to say if voter turnout is higher, if registration is up, if young people vote, if . . .   This is why, I argue Zogby polls are tied but Zogby himself has been predicting a Kerry win for a couple of weeks.  Legitimate polling groups need to be accurate and defensible - not just accurate.  So the conservative models are very defensible, but how accurate??  In short, I think a Kerry %50+ possible perhaps even likely and a handy electoral college count of 300+ also likely.  In RETROSPECT all the firms can say "wow, look at that turnout - if we had only known".  So, as always GOTV GOTV GOTV GOTV GOTG

Chris, if you're out there, can you re-weight the Gallup poll to show what it would really look like, please? I'd be curious about that.

Where is the link to Rush's comments?

If you are interested in what it looks like when you are in the eye of a hurricane, here's my blog

http://loganslurch.blogspot.com/2004/11/from-ground-columbus-ohio-11012004.html

It's gonna be nuts here tomorrow!

then we are looking at a PV very similar to 1988, if undecideds (6%) break 4:2 and there are no significant turnout swings from 2000's 39D-35R-26I (somewhat dubious, I think).  Even so, by my calculations this would give Kerry around 52% to Bush's 46% to Nader et al's 2%.  While not quite George HW Bush's 8-point win over Dukakis and 426-112, it would probably yield us an electoral college win similar to Clinton's two.

Are we seeing a redux of 1980?  My prediction this morning was much more conservative with K 320- B 218, but maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised tomorrow night?

 Business - Reuters

Speculators Bet on Kerry Win, Oil Falls

 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=568&ncid=749&e=1&u=/nm/20041101/bs_n m/markets_oil_dc

I hate to rain on the parade, but it's in my nature -- I'm a numbers geek and I can't help but try to keep things reality-based. Please see the Mystery Pollster on "Should pollsters weight by party identification?" www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/09/should_pollster.html His conclusion is that they should not, but that they should strive nstead to match other, fixed, identifiers in the voting population (like age, gender, and perhaps most importantly, geography - urban/rural, for example). "Party ID" is not a fixed constant - it varies a lot depending on how one asks the questions and in response to current events. But lest I be accused of being a kill joy, I should point out that of all the ways that people out there are conducting polls, the Mystery Pollster likes the FOX weighting methodology best.

I am happily lapping up the electoral optimism here, but I have a nagging point of inquiry....

The two most common phenomena I have seen cited for a Kerry win are:

1.  The incumbent rule, and
   
2.  Gore's 2000 "surge" relative to the polls previous to the election.  (Whether this is a true surge or consistently "off" polls has been up to debate.)

But I have read no one that puts 1) and 2) together -- didn't Gore's 2000 surge effectively represent a huge surge for the incumbent?

Although I know that the incumbent rule is meant to reflect an incumbent individual more than the incumbent party, it seems to me that taking both of these phenomena simultaneously is an exercise in using contradictory premises to gain a desired result.  

I'm hoping an astute contributor can explain this contradiction away.  (And, for me personally, at least, saying that the incumbent rule didn't apply to Gore at all doesn't really cut it.)

Any thoughts?

I only know Ohio. Small town, town and rural county in central OH. Kerry had to open second h.q., more drivers than needed, serious volunteer corps.

Today's Columbus Dispatch, a conservative Republican newspaper, has its final (OH) poll and several good articles today. Dead even overall, but poll covers Oct. 20-28, and represents 7 % Kerry improvement from their previous poll. Especially notable: 1 in 8 registered voters is new, highly concntrated in heavily Kerry districts, seen breaking 2-1 for Kerry. Ohio also has a huge college/university population, which anecdotally is highly motivated and clearly pro-Kerry. I smell a clear outcome, perhaps helped by latest Court rulings.  www.columbusdispatch.com

"We are gaining momentum as the race winds down and people begin to make their final choices," said Sen. Kerry. "The tide is turning in our favor because people have begun to make up their minds."

Kerry quote from 11/4/96, a few days before he beat Weld 52-45, to hold his Senate seat.

Here's how I score the upcoming presidential election.  The folks at www.dataseers.com have conducted a rudimentary meta-analysis of the most recent state-level polls.  This approach has the advantage of removing many states from the "battleground" column into relatively safe states for one candidate or another.  For example, this meta-analysis puts Pennsylvania solidly in the Kerry column and Florida solidly in the Bush column.  It has the disadvantage of possibly missing very late trends in the polling data.  This approach puts all states but five solidly (85% chance or more of winning) in one camp or another.  Of those five states, I don't believe that three (Arizona, Hawaii, and Michigan) are really in play.  Arizona will go for Bush, Hawaii and Michigan for Kerry.  That leaves only two states really in play: Iowa, with seven electoral votes, and Ohio, with twenty.

An appendix with how I call the states is listed at the bottom.  But the real bottom line is that Bush has 259 safe electoral votes, and Kerry 252.  That makes Iowa irrelevant, and Ohio the state that will make a big difference.  (Unless, of course, Hawaii really is in play, in which case Bush could lose Ohio, but win, with 270 electoral votes, by carrying Iowa and Hawaii).

If you're looking for an early indicator, check New Hampshire.  Kerry should take this one; if he doesn't it's going to be a long night for Democrats.  There probably isn't a good early indicator for Bush.  Florida would be, of course, but after what happened in 2000 the networks are going to wait forever to call that one.

So, the election really is too close to call, but saying that is the coward's way out.  Who's really going to win?  The Democrats could win if they dramatically increase voter turnout, but I don't believe they really have the troops to do that.  Blame this on Tony Coelho and his inheritors.  Failing sharply increased turnout, the election will turn on late trends.  So how will the late deciders break?  They're going to break for Bush.  The one issue on which he has consistently led Kerry throughout the campaign is ability to fight the war on terror.  (I'm not saying he is better, just that he's consistently perceived to be better, and by a large margin).  With Friday's release of the Osama bin Laden tape, that issue is going to have more salience in voters' minds.  Hence, Bush wins.

As for the Senate and House, don't sweat it.  They're both staying Republican.

Happy election!  Vote early and often!

BUSH STATES (electoral votes in parentheses)
Alaska (3)
Alabama (7)
Arkansas (6)
Arizona (10)
Colorado (9)
Florida (27)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (9)
Missouri (11)
Mississippi (6)
Montana (3)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Nebraska (5)
New Mexico (5)
Nevada (5)
Oklahoma (7)
South Carolina (8)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
Virginia (13)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)

KERRY STATES
California (55)
Connecticut (7)
D.C. (3)
Delaware (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (21)
Massachusetts (12)
Maryland (10)
Maine (4)
Michigan (17)
Minnesota (10)
New Hampshire (4)
New Jersey (15)
New York (31)
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania (21)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (11)
Wisconsin (10)

STATES IN PLAY
Iowa (7)
Ohio (20)

For months now on the Emerging Democratic Majority blog they have been playing "how can Gallup?"

This is a little game showing us how gallup skews their polls very far to the right.  Check it out:

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000731.php

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000730.php

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000729.php

...and my reweighting of the Pew poll, Kerry's ahead 49-45 (Gallup) or 49-46 (Pew).  I'd say a win in the 52-47 ballpark is not completely beyond hope.  

If Kerry gets that sort of popular vote margin, he'll get 320 EVs easily, and ought to pick up at least one surprise somewhere, along the lines of VA, NC, MO, CO, or AZ.

I'm not saying this will happen.  But it's possible.

Today I eagerly awaited media and blog reaction to Newsweek's supposed article wherein Colin Powell is described as having told friends the Iraq war is unwinnable. I think this would hit Bush where it hurts. But I've not yet seen anything. Any reports?

As a corporate pilot I flew Rush on several occasions, and I must say that he's actually a pretty nice guy.  Regardless... I still hope when Tuesday morning rolls around, that steam comes shooting out his ears as his goes into an insane screamin tantrum that is only ended when the guys in white coats come and stick him in his fat ass with a shot of sodium pentathol before forcing him into a straight jacket and driving him to a nice quiet place in the country for a well deserved extended rest.