Combine the typical margin of error of polls with the rampant fraud by Democrat organizers and the election could swing some 8 percentage points against Bush.

The MSM scum will continue to fabricate their polls showing Mr. Bush ahead only for the purpose of motivating the left and tranquilizing our side.

Please, we must redouble our efforts...work as if Mr. Bush is trailing. Do that until the real polls have all closed and then there will be time to celebrate.

The MSM scum will continue to fabricate their polls showing Mr. Bush ahead only for the purpose of motivating the left and tranquilizing our side.

Uh, are you joking?

Wow, that's surprising. 35/35/20 and still a 5 point lead. Actually, I do think Time is fairly decent magazine. May tilt a bit but I can at least trust some of their reporting.

I have no idea what Coot is saying but of course Bush should and will keep campaigning hard. I'm not sure how much our "work" has much impact at this point in the election though. There's a lot more to it all than that.

Yeah, I wonder what the November surprise will be. At the rate the Demos are going, it will be that Laura Bush once was caught kissing her prom date.

You know, I thought Clinton campaigned pathetically but at least he kept his cheesiest lines relegated to the issues ("I feel your pain") instead of attacking the other sides' children, accusing them of secretly planning to disenfranchise millions of African-Americans, slamming the first lady, etc...Yes, John Kerry and Breck Girl have made me long for the days when we could be counted on a Democrat politician such as Bill Clinton to pander with some style and class.

Damn, I'm on my first beer and I'm already screwing up. That last line should read...

"Yes, John Kerry and Breck Girl have made me long for the days when we could count on a Democrat politician such as Bill Clinton to pander with some style and class."

I don't believe polls anymore. My husband and I don't talk to them at all, and I know many people who lie to the pollsters calling during dinner on purpose.

I think the elections results will be a surprise to the pollsters.

Too serious to joke about.The MSM has consistently manipulated poll methodology to show Kerry "surges" after each debate. Bill, I pray you wake up. Out!

I pray you take your medication.

I hope some of you bloggers were covering the shameful performance of Sinclair tonight. After the first 10 minutes it was a Pro-Kerry and Sinclair Ad. We all need to Write Sinclair and tell them how shameful their show was and boycott them. I have already written. I know this is off topic but I had to say something or burst.

Bill, you grow ever increasingly curmudgeonly. What on earth did Old Coot say that offended you so that you urge him to take his meds?

Do you think we should all be most polite and reasonable as Hinkrocket was to Wonkette today following their kinda debate in nowhere Pennsylvania? I am unable to link because that smarmy bit by Hindrocket about the the swell Kos and wonderful Wonkette has already scrolled down. Wish I had saved it.

Are bloggers collectively on a preening spree? Looks like it.

Old Coot,

Treat your host with more respect. We are all on the same side although as a McCain-minted Republican, I retain some serious issues with W's. base. Not enough to send me into Kerry's camp, but some quaisient libertarian concerns.

Not to mention the deficit. But the Brits never brought that up against Churchill and man oh man were they ever down in the GDP department in 1940.

Terry -

What on earth did Old Coot say that offended you so that you urge him to take his meds?

"Bill, I pray you wake up."

Is that what constitutes politeness when someone walks into your house, Terry?

And what exactly about bloggers getting short with people consitutes "preening," exactly?

I don't know what you are talking about regarding Hindrocket and Wonkette - your post doesn't make sense. I get the impression that you're being sarcastic, but it's not executed very well.

This isn't a mean comment, it's honest. I don't know the nature of the exchange that you refer to, what was said that bothered you, or what exactly you're talking about. Context is helpful when you try to make your point. I'm actually curious now.

And besides all that, I have another suggestion - If you don't like the way bloggers run their blogs - don't read them. Or better yet, start your own blog. When someone visits your blog and tells you, "I pray you wake up," and that you're "preening," you can display the humane and patient discourse that we should all aspire to.

Please Terry - show us the way.

Bill,
Yours is a great blog, insightful and on target. The polls look great for Bush, thanks for posting them. Any guesses when the MSM will stop talking about AP/IPSOS and focus on the six or seven polls that contradict any idea of a Kerry "lead"? I'll say about two days before the election, just to save face.

Don't trust the polls, don't trust the polls, don't trust the polls.

There has already been enough poll manipulation this year (Newsweek's altering of the proportions of Reps to Dems in the sample comes immeditely to mind) and there is too much history of cooked polls in the not-distant past (The L.A. Times showing Gray Davis as a shoo-in). Besides that, people lie to pollsters all the time (Helms vs. Gantt, where Gantt was up to ten points ahead... everywhere except the voting booths).
The best thing for Bush to do is to junk the poll data, smile like he's ten points ahead... and campaign like he's TWELVE points behind.

I know that everyone is talking about an "October Surprise" that the Dems might try to pull on Bush, but frankly I'm a bit skeptical (though _not_ ruling it out!). I thought a lot about what kind of revelation might be unleashed, and some of the possible scenarios thereof that have been bruited in the blogosphere, and I'm having a hard time thinking of anything that hasn't already been gone over before.

National Guard - Bush has basically been inoculated against that by Rathergate. Given that people have been going over his record with a fine-tooth comb for literally years, I don't see what could be publicized that hasn't already been publicized, and if there was any more dirt there it would probably already have been brought to light by now.

Drugs - Kitty Kelley went muckraking on that in _The Family_, and that book has basically dropped off the radar as far as I can tell. Besides, everyone seems to take it as a given already that Bush did some experimentation in his younger party-hearty days; in that day and age, it would have been difficult to _avoid_ at least pot. Unless the Dems have a story of Bush doing heroin or dealing drugs or something like that, I don't see how it flies.

Abortion - Ditto. In fact, if somebody tried to peddle something about one of the Bush women at this point, I have a feeling it would backfire in the light of the Mary Cheney and "real job" gaffes.

Gay affairs - ??? As far as I can tell, _nobody_ has ever seriously suggested that Bush has any kind of gay inclinations. Considering the vehemence surrounding the whole gay-marriage issue, if there were any such thing, I'm very sure Andrew Sullivan would have jumped on it long since.

Straight affairs - Again, ??? The only woman that has ever been mentioned in connection with such a rumor is Condi Rice, and when she's brought up it's basically in a context that indicates that the whole thing is a joke. Besides, one needs only look at the Bushes to get a good idea of the state of their marriage. Seriously, there has never been any serious accusation of GWB cheating on Laura so I don't see how such a claim, if made in the last week before the election, gains much traction.

Another DUI/DWI - If there were one, I think it'd have been brought out in '00 or shortly thereafter, because I'm sure the nation's journalists were combing the arrest ledgers of every police station in the country.

Plamegate - Somebody suggested on another blog that Karl Rove might be indicted in the leadup to the election. I rather doubt that, given that he was informed up front when the investigation began that he was _not_ a target, and as far as I know, nothing since has changed. The heat right now is actually on the journalists (Judith Miller, etc.) to give up their sources. H'mmmm...you suppose the Dems might try to get Miller to crack before the election?

Halliburton/Enron/etc. etc. etc. - This particular horse is overdue for the glue factory. The Democrats have been banging away at corporate crime for so long that most people have just tuned it out. Unless they have some Startling New Revelation for the last week before the election - and again, I'm not ruling it out - I don't really see what headway they'll be able to make with any new charges.

Endorsements - Maybe this is the "October Surprise"? Larry Sabato of U-VA said yesterday that he had heard that a major endorsement for one of the candidates was going to come down next week. A lot of the speculation has been that it might be Nancy Reagan endorsing Kerry. I tend to doubt that, however, given that her press secretary publicly announced - there ought to be links somewhere, I know I linked to the story in another discussion board back in the summer - in July that Mrs. Reagan was supporting Bush for re-election.

The other things that I can think of are basically things that are outside the candidates' control, such as Iraq, oil prices, etc. Does anyone have any other ideas?

One more thing:

I am very sure indeed that, whatever the scenario is, Karl Rove and his team have wargamed it and have contingency plans in place. He got a terrible black eye in '00 when he was caught flatfooted on the DUI business and he's undoubtedly determined not to let it happen again.

Well, I lied. I did just think of one more thing. The folks over on PoliPundit are discussing the question of endorsements, and throwing around various possibilities, and somebody brought up Nader. I know the Democrats would love it if he dropped out. I don't see how, in absolute terms, he would bring much over to the Democratic side because his numbers run at 1% to 2%. On the other hand, the MSM would be all over a Nader endorsement of Kerry like butter on toast.

Nader endorsing Kerry would not make for much of a surprise.

First of all, his numbers are too low, and many of his supporters do so more to protest the other party platforms than because they support Nader first and the democrats second. They would simply not vote. Some polls like to assign the Nader votes to Kerry in a 2 way (some, not all polls) The reality is that Kerry would likely not get even 1% from a Nader drop out and endorsement.

Secondly, even if the move was trumpeted in the media, how many other people would care? There is a reason that Nader has only 1-2%. No one else takes him, his positions, or his avid supporters seriously.

Thirdly, Nader will not drop out. He is making a statement and his ego would not allow that statement to be invalidated by tossing in the towel.

The other theme of the thread - the polls.

The polls are being gamed. I refuse to answer pollsters. People I know do the same. Organizations commisioning polls game them with sample manipulation and by simply by how they cast the questions. The online polls are a joke - the Atriettes and Kosites for instance constantly interrupt their threads with calls to each other to go to some url and cast a vote in an online poll along with instructions on how cast multiple votes.

There is little useful information to gain from the public polls other than that they are trending for Bush and any conclusion on that has to take into account the gaming one way or the other depending on which side you believe is gaming. Oddly enough, I believe this actually backfires. If the polls both nationally and in the swing states are being gamed as much as I believe to inflate one party or the other's numbers, the actual difference in the results 11/2 may be well outside the MoE in the polls run 11/1. Old coot has a very good point there.

The polls to believe are the campaign internals. The only indication of those results is where the candidates concentrate their campaigning in the last couple of weeks. Swing states are still in play obviously, but the Red states seem solid. Some blue states from 2000 are very much still in play (PA, MINN, and MI).

My conclusion - the campaigning indicates that Kerry is in bad trouble both in the swing states and in some states thought to be his by default. The public poll volitility indicates that they are being gamed and gamed one way. Bush is very likely 4-5 points above what his numbers in the public polls suggest nationally and perhaps more.

Then again, I am applying common sense here. Always a poor yardstick to use when trying to make sense of an election.

Check out USS Clueless for his theory on MSM poll manipulations.

RealClearPolitics is a great service, but watch closely how the averages are compiled. For example, in Minnesota RCP includes the Star-Tribune poll, which is always wrong (eg, it predicted a Mondale victory over Coleman by 6; Coleman won by 3). Also, Zogby was wrong on about 30% of the races in 2002, some by large margins (Coleman in MN, Allard in CO).

Not all polls are equal, but RCP includes them all in the averages.

From what I've seen, Mason-Dixon is the most reliable.

Here's a url to a Steven Den Beste analysis of the public polling data and a well-founded explanation of what it might mean.

http://denbeste.nu/special/polltrends.shtml

I agree with much/most/all of what Steven says, but as an engineer I might be a bit biased in agreeing with his treatment of the data in establishing the trend over time.

I also agree with his conclusion about why the samples were so volatile in short periods of time - there were forces manipulating the sample data. What he misses, or rather I think purposefully does not address, is whether the sample data captured actually represents a complete sample over time regardless of short term manipulation. He addresses only the question of manipulation of data by the poll takers. He doesn't address the question of public gaming of the polls - that more data is not being captured than the MoE accommodates due to a public non-responsive to the pollsters and active and the effects on the MoE. Steven is a more careful fellow than me - I'll make that assumption.

Take a look at Steven's two trends for Bush and Kerry. If you happen to believe that the public is also gaming the polls, move Bush's up and Kerry's down or vice versa depending on who you think is gaming better and the assumption that the MoE is at least another 5% more than the pollsters publish because of that gaming.

If you believe that the public gaming of the polls is a combination of primarily pro-Kerry voters not inclined to declare for Kerry to a pollster and pro-Bush people skewing the sample in Bush's favor - there is little or no evidence for either that I have seen - Kerry is ahead by 2-3%. If you believe the public gaming is a combination of primarily pro-Bush voters not inclined to declare for Bush to a pollster and pro-Kerry people skewing the sample in Kerry's favor - and there is ample evidence for both - Bush is ahead by well over 10%.

The Time poll is only one of the public polls now confirming SDB's hypothesis on the results of the overall trend. The campaigns are confirming my hypothesis that the trends are correct, but the actual numbers are very different from the public polls - Bush's is getting more confident in it's message daily and Kerry's more shrill trying to react.

MD and I are both referencing the same post by Steven Den Beste.

I agree with much/most/all of what Steven says, but as an engineer I might be a bit biased in agreeing with his treatment of the data in establishing the trend over time.

Michael Barone had an interesting article that disagreed with dn Beste:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_041020.htm

I don't think there will be an October surprise, I think if any dirt has been dug up on Bush it either won't matter much at this point, but I honestly think the dems have thrown all the dirt they could find already.

I think a great October Surprise for the Bush camp would be the capture of Zarqawi in Iraq, but I am not too hopeful of that one-I just don't expect any October surprises this year, I think this race is going to slog through to the end.

I also think the polls are suspect-it is difficult to compart polls from the same news organizations this year, as Newsweek has proven, and sample size, and proportions mean a lot in interpretation.

I also think there is no way for the polls to account for voter fraud, and as much as the RNC gets slammed for wanting voting to be legal and fraud free, the dems have become masters at fraud-I can't help but wonder how many of those fake and multiple registrants are going to cast votes come Nov 2.

I think this election will go to the lawyers once again.

Yes, I read it. My qualification about being a fellow engineer was to underline my appeciation of the logic Den Beste used in treating the data. I do not necessarily believe that voting trends can be treated like engineering data.

The point is that treating the data as Den Beste did highlites a very strong trend that is internally consistent over time as opposed to the daily averages that RCP publishes or the snapshots the MSM uses.

I don't trust the polls but not because I think they are manipulated. When things are close any 'noise' in the sample can take on undue importance. Also this election is likely to be different than any we have experienced in our lives, so the so called "likely voter models" are likely to be innaccurate.

I am also strongly suspicious of the voter registrations. All the ACORN and ACT stuff where known false people were registered to vote, makes me wonder just what is going to happen. I think many of those paid people filled out the cards for the cash, and nobody will be using the cards to cast votes come election day, but you can't help but worry, unless one candidate wins decisively, I think this one is going to the lawyers.

As for the registrations, I have my theory about Democrat strategy, that is, create a lawsuit or lawsuits in particular districts in particular states ASAP.

First, choose precincts where you know the electoral officials will resist votes by "voters" who are not registered in that precinct. Hey, take a video cameral with you.

Second, the precincts must be in the correct state and federal judicial districts (this is called forum-shopping).

Third, file lawsuits, as was done in St Louis in 2000, on the day of the election, while the election is occurring.

Fourth, convert your manufactured lawsuit to a class action, to cover all "similarly situated" voters for the entire state.

Fifth, if possible, get your lawsuit before a federal district judge (a Clinton appointee, if you have done your homework).

The complaints have already been dictated and typed, the affidavits written, etc. They are all dated Nov 2. Some local judges will collapse (as the Palm Beach County democratic judge did in 2000), but, alhtough the media will attempt to create a frenzy over this kind of thing, in the end I don't think it will amount to much.

The reason litigation played a large role in the 2000 election is because it was the "perfect storm," several unrelated factors all had to converge at one time and place to create the pressure. It's highly unlikely to recur.

Just as everyone fights the last war, everyone expects the last election.