http://www.electoral-vote.com/

--
.......

A note from that site:

His data is heavily weighted with pre-debate numbers:

Not a lot of change in the state polls right now. I installed new software
yesterday to average recent polls per state going back 30 days. There was a
create hue and cry that this was a bad thing because the race is in such a
state a flux that polls that old are meaningless. In the middle of the day I
changed the look-back parameter to 7 days, so now only polls within the past
week are used. I agree with many readers that 30 days is too much. If I were a
Republican, I would have said "I am going to stay the course, even though I am
wrong." Fortunately, I am a Democrat so I can flip-flop all I want. Let's see
how a 7-day look-back window works. The idea was to prevent the map from
changing wildly every day. Averaging introduces some stability, but also
introduces lag in responding to current events. Finding the right parameter
might be tricky.

Gould 0738 wrote:
A note from that site:

His data is heavily weighted with pre-debate numbers:

Not a lot of change in the state polls right now. I installed new software
yesterday to average recent polls per state going back 30 days. There was a
create hue and cry that this was a bad thing because the race is in such a
state a flux that polls that old are meaningless. In the middle of the day I
changed the look-back parameter to 7 days, so now only polls within the past
week are used. I agree with many readers that 30 days is too much. If I were a
Republican, I would have said "I am going to stay the course, even though I am
wrong." Fortunately, I am a Democrat so I can flip-flop all I want. Let's see
how a 7-day look-back window works. The idea was to prevent the map from
changing wildly every day. Averaging introduces some stability, but also
introduces lag in responding to current events. Finding the right parameter
might be tricky.


For many months, I have stated here over and over that the polls were
volatile, more so than in the past, and that many of them were simply
not reflective of the dramatic changes taking place in the electorate.
The last few weeks have proven the accuracy of my posit. As an example,
most pollsters' samplings are NOT reaching (on a representative basis,
of course) the millions of Americans who in recent months have been
flooding voter registration offices in most states.

If I had the money, I'd pay to rebroadcast last week's debate a few
dozen times.











--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

As an example,
most pollsters' samplings are NOT reaching (on a representative basis,
of course) the millions of Americans who in recent months have been
flooding voter registration offices in most states.

Guess who else isn't being polled?

Generation X, and those slightly younger but well into voting age.

Most of us over-40 fossils have a hard wired telephone. We're listed in phone
books. Because it's been so long since we've had to learn anything new, a lot
of us get lazy and fall for the slickest campaign pitch at election time. More
of us are Republicans. We see our lives as more than half over, and feel that's
it is more important to feather our own pre-retirement nests than to worry
wheter somebody else has any feathers. Because we have hard wired telephones,
we're the group called by the surveyors.

My 31-year old son *just* put in a hard wired phone and appeared in the phone
book. Up until now, he has used his cell phone for all purposes. My 27-year old
daughter uses her cell phone almost non-stop, would have no use for a
land-line, and doesn't appear in a phone book anywhere.

In summary, one of the basic assumptions upon which polls have been
traditionally based is that "almost everybody has a phone and is listed in the
phone book".
That was never true, but it is far less true today than it was only a few years
ago.

Gould 0738 wrote:
As an example,
most pollsters' samplings are NOT reaching (on a representative basis,
of course) the millions of Americans who in recent months have been
flooding voter registration offices in most states.

Guess who else isn't being polled?

Generation X, and those slightly younger but well into voting age.

Most of us over-40 fossils have a hard wired telephone. We're listed in phone
books. Because it's been so long since we've had to learn anything new, a lot
of us get lazy and fall for the slickest campaign pitch at election time. More
of us are Republicans. We see our lives as more than half over, and feel that's
it is more important to feather our own pre-retirement nests than to worry
wheter somebody else has any feathers. Because we have hard wired telephones,
we're the group called by the surveyors.

My 31-year old son *just* put in a hard wired phone and appeared in the phone
book. Up until now, he has used his cell phone for all purposes. My 27-year old
daughter uses her cell phone almost non-stop, would have no use for a
land-line, and doesn't appear in a phone book anywhere.

In summary, one of the basic assumptions upon which polls have been
traditionally based is that "almost everybody has a phone and is listed in the
phone book".
That was never true, but it is far less true today than it was only a few years
ago.


The latest Rasmussen robot tracking poll shows Bush ahead by a
point...yesterday, Bush was ahead by three or four points. Generally,
Bush's "lead" in most of the polls has evaporated or has shrunk to
within the margin of error.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

The latest Rasmussen robot tracking poll shows Bush ahead by a
point...yesterday, Bush was ahead by three or four points. Generally,
Bush's "lead" in most of the polls has evaporated or has shrunk to
within the margin of error.

If Kerry and Edwards dominate the rest of the debates in the same manner that
Kerry
mopped the floor with Bush in the first one,
and if that turns the trend around and brings about a vote for change, my
cynical opinion of the general electorate will need to be modified to a
slightly more charitable position.

Can the American public see beyond the
rhetoric of the campaigns to make thoughtful, personally meaningful, and
conscientous choices? Will information triumph over disinformation? Even an
independent like myself can find some high drama in a partisan election. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Fortunately, I am a Democrat so I can flip-flop all I want.

Wow! An honest Democrat!

NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Fortunately, I am a Democrat so I can flip-flop all I want.

Wow! An honest Democrat!



And can admit it, too. Which is more that dumbo Bush can do.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?