Rasmussen Reports joins the chorus discussing the possibility, once dismissed on this blog, of an inverse inversion in the Electoral College — the opposite of 2000:
The data suggests a range of plausible outcomes are possible next Tuesday.
If Senator Kerry has a good final weekend and the Democratic ground game is very effective, the Senator could win a narrow victory (possibly even winning the Electoral College without winning the popular vote).
At the other extreme, if President Bush has a good final weekend and the GOP ground game is very effective, he could win a fairly comfortable victory (4-5 points in the popular vote, 330+ Electoral Votes).
The final possibility is that the numbers stay right where they are and the President is narrowly re-elected. In that case, all eyes will be on Ohio.
Mystery Pollster, as previously noted by my dad, thinks this is possible, too. Andrew Sullivan calls it the “dream scenario.” Part of me wants to agree with that, but no, I’ll stick with my previously stated hope that there is no popular-electoral inversion at all.
Given the choice between the repeat inversion and the inverse inversion, though, I would definitely prefer the latter. It would be really fun to watch how both sides react. :)
|
Categories: Election 2004
|
October 29th, 2004 at 6:13:56 pm
“At the other extreme, if President Bush has a good final weekend and the GOP ground game is very effective, he could win a fairly comfortable victory…”
Present gloomy intuition: the G*ddamn bin Laden tape is going to give President Bush a good final weekend.
The murdering bastard’s preposterous 9/11 Blame-laying on, and other criticism of, the President has GOT to have that effect. / And, I gotta think the egregious mule-Mounted soaker of Horse-corks KNOWS it! These guys study our Politics, fer cryin’ out loud. IF so, why the Gift? Maybe yer Man WANTS Bush re-elected! For fear (well-founded, if so) that Kerry will be more effective at (a) killing Yer Man, (b) defeating his associates & Successors, and (c) bringing about their ultimate Bane: a workable comprehensive Middle East peace settlement, & thus their Ruin.
(NO, Andrew & others, there is NO guilt-by-association in that thought & Yes, I declare that no inference of any Terrorist’s putative opinion is any reason to vote for or against any American candidate.)
As for “the GOP ground game”, it’s always more Organized & Efficient than ours. Nature of the Beast. Both Beasts. :) Whether it’s more “effective”, we’ll soon see. They throw Challenges at us; we throw overwhelming Numbers at them. :) [btw, the Ohio Repub SOS has asked the state AG to ban all Party Challengers, both sides, from the polls. Too much Disruption & Delay. Trust the bipartisan official pollworkers. / Woo woo. :]
I am pessimistic now. / I hope to Get Over it in a minute. :>
(Optimism Recovery, Step 1: “15% of the Vote has already been Cast. We probably have a big Cushion already. 15% of the Vote has already been Cast. We probably have a….” :)
October 29th, 2004 at 6:20:26 pm
“As for “the GOP ground game”, it’s always more Organized & Efficient than ours.”
That’s simply not true. Until fairly recently (i.e. after 2000), the GOP had a fairly ragtag GOTV infrastructure. The Dems have always had one. It’s called Organized Labor. You know this.
October 29th, 2004 at 8:25:59 pm
OK then, I stand corrected. / Yes of course my beloved Union Goons are good at it. I just always think of the Repubs as somehow more efficient. Perhaps that’s been true in the campaign Research offices & high Strategy councils & Smear Ad production units but not out on the Mean Streets until recently. :)
This reminds me of an example of somewhat-questionable Verbal efficiency which I received in the snailmail yesterday. With your indulgence, or Without it for that matter :), I am going to Share it with you herewith. Verbatim, including Capitalizations — except that, in a futile effort to avoid publicly Embarrassing my AFL-CIO Sisters & Brothers, I shall ****omit**** the name of the Local & the surnames of the marvellous letter’s Authors (their Given names are necessary-and-sufficient unto the Point :). Emphases and my [commentaries] are added; the latter here break up what is a single paragraph in the original.
“Dear Member,
“The *********’s Committee on Political Education (COPE) is pleased to annouce that the Senate Candidate from your 9th voting district has been endorsed.
[>>There are 2 such Candidates & it’s the 9th Senatorial District, covering All of 3 Towns & Portions of 2 more & many voting districts which is what CT calls precincts — I’m in Newington’s 4th voting district — but nevermind about that now; keep reading. It’ll be Worth it. Trust Me on this. :]
“Biagio “Billy” Ciotto has successfully completed the COPE questionnaire.
[This comes as a Relief to me because I really wasn’t sure Billy could get Through it. :]
“This Committee feels that he will be a positive supporter of this Union’s issues.
“Please vote for Biagio “Billy” Ciotto on Tuesday, November 2nd. If you have any time between now and the election, please consider donating your time and/or money in order to ensure the election of Biagio “Billy” Ciotto.
“Pro-Union candidates can be very helpful in ensuring that our upcoming contract be approved in the Spring Legislative Session.
“Thank you for your attention.
“Yours in Labor,
“Pauline ****, COPE Co-Chair
“Elizabeth ****, COPE Co-Chair”
I read this startling sign-off to a politically-knowledgeable friend locally. His thought was, “I wonder if Billy had anything to due with their current Condition.”
:)
(Billy’s muh Man, of course. Whether he was Pauline’s & Elizabeth’s or not. :)