This is a good Likely Voter model, in my mind. I think typically the GOP will have higher numbers in this state than the Dems. It's reversed this time.
It is quite possible that the whole Likely Voter theory is reversed this time. Usually, lots of people who lean Dem don't vote. This time, it's quite likely that more Reps will not vote than Dems. 36% to 68% is a big jump. Gallup et al are still assuming the old numbers, IMHO.
Igoring Arab Americans, I think most Nader voters this time are anti-war people, some of whom would traditionally vote for a Democrat, but won't vote for Kerry because he voted for the war (although of course he didn't exactly do that). Some of these people normally vote Green or don't vote-but a good chunk of them would traditionally vote for Democrats. We need to convince them that Kerry's vote wasn't what they think it was, and that even if they still don't like that, he's still a million times better than Bush, which is who they are basically supporting if they vote for Nader. I think, with 2000 fresh in everybody's mind, they will come around for the most part, although begrugingly. I expect Nader to get in 2004 less than half of what he got in 2000, as Perot did in 1996 compared to 1992.
Tell me, which would serve the Republican party better-running carpetbagger Alan Keyes (who can barely get 30% in his home state in past elections) against Barack Obama, or not running anybody at all?
Lets say you have a million dollars to spend, and there are two races. One you can win if you spend the whole million on it (but it'll be close), the other you couldn't win if you spent ten or a hundred million dollars on it. Why would you give anything beyond maybe a token amount to the race you are going to lose no matter what you do?
If there are competative races in Texas, in the House, say, then many national funds should be spent in those districts. But beyond that, you are better off sending the money to Ohio or Florida or Tennesse or Colorado or Nevada or Iowa or West Virginia or other battleground states.
If you take thier Registered Voter results in thier recent polls, they heavily favor Kerry (like all other polls at this point). But their Likely Voter results all favor Bush. They may be using a past behavior model-IE, did you vote in the last election? That type of model may not work if ACT, etc., are really getting people who are only semi-connected to the voting process to actually turn out and vote.
Well, the United States has a Representative Democracy, not a true Democracy (although with the number of propositions on my ballot here in California each year, it sure seems California is trying to make it a true Direct Democracy). The point is that my vote is worth less than people in other states-I have less say in who represents me in the House, Senate, and Presidency, than somebody in a smaller state.
I don't know enough about the Senate race there to comment on it. HOWEVER, I must state again that 47-47 is not that different than 48-43. It's not like we are talking about such a polling result in Utah or Texas or Alaska. A Kerry win is certainly possible, although not probable. What I want is a poll on how the proposition to split Colorado's electoral vote is doing. That way, even if Kerry loses, he wins (4 EVs). Of course, it would kinda suck if the propsition passes and Kerry actually wins the state overall.
Badnarik will have an impact-in fact, in the end, I think he may get more votes than Nader.
However, this is neutral news. I believe that the Libertarians pull just as many Democratic votes as Republican votes. Remember, Libertarians are pro-pot, anti-war, anti-Patriot Act-the only reason they get any Republican voters at all is because they are anti-tax (and anti-government in general). In fact, I will on occasion vote for the Libertarian if I have a problem with a specific Democrat or there is no Democrat running in a specific down-ticket race.
Kerry's and Bush's Israeli policies are nearly identical, so this makes sense. However, this is "I voted for Bush last time and I'm voting for Nader this time", not "I would vote for Bush this time if Nader isn't running".
I am surprised more Arab voters aren't moving to Badnarik.
DNC should spend zero dollars in states Kerry is going to lose (unless maybe there is competative down ticket canidates), and concentrate it's money in places where it matters.
Welcome to the Electoral College, which means Texas and California and New York contain not millions of voters, but nothing of significance that can help Kerry. Every dollar spent in a state where the outcome is certain means one less dollar to be spent somewhere where it can actually help effect the vote. It sucks, but that's the system we are stuck with.
Other polls use likely voters too, however the other polls (even when using likely voters) never have Bush doing as well as Gallup does. Either everybody else's likely voter model is wrong, or Gallup's is.
Moveon really does allow Kerry to be good cop all the time, with them willingly doing the mudslinging for him. Especially with the "I approve this message" stuff, direct attack ads tend to cause both sides to get dirty. However, Kerry can stand above it all, in a way.
Basically, people from small states want things to remain the same, people from big states feel cheated. I bet the last three people live in small states.
Not only does it mean my vote as a Californian is worth less (I posted the first comment, finally got an account), the Electoral College means that not only are large states unrepresented, but only CLOSE states are worth campaigning in (regardless of size). Nobody cares about Utah or Connecticut, because they are guaranteed to go one way or the other. If it was a straight popular vote, maybe somebody running for president would.