Electoral-vote. com is CRAP! They have * leading in Oregon and NH!

[joanne]

Please. He even admits it defies logic to assume * is leading in those states.

But he goes ahead and puts it in the "weak *" category.

No wonder we cant pay any attention to polls.

[adamrsilva]

1. He just wants to follow his own rules

of using the latest polls. It'll switch back once a newer (accurate) one comes out.

[Warpy]

2. They are making the mistake of accepting

every dubious poll out there as fact, instead of sticking to the ones that have been around and have decent track records.

It seems these bogus polling companies are springing up overnight, like mushrooms, and that their sole purpose is to portray Bush as unstoppable and suppress the Dem vote.

This is just one more Rovian tactic to suppress the vote and get that damned fool back into office against the will of the people.

[joanne]

4. Totally agree with you

They have to portray Chimpy as a "winner".

[Longhorn]

5. I'm not sure which "they" you're referring to --

perhaps polls in general?

But the "Votemaster" at electoral-vote.com is a Kerry supporter.

[joanne]

6. The fly by night polling companies

And it makes NO SENSE whatsoever when this guy will even admit some of the polls are bogus, yet he goes ahead and changes the electoral map in Chimpy's favor.

Oh well. It is good for entertainment purposes. Just wouldnt want some people to see that map and get discouraged.

Also has NM and Iowa leading Chimpy's way. Just makes no sense at all.

[Longhorn]

9. I would like to see him explain his rationale, too.

I always read his updated comments and he makes it clear that he doesn't think the results are valid but it does beg the question, then why use them? I can only assume he's afraid he'll seem too partisan if he uses polls that are demonstrably more accurate but also support his candidate.

[still_one]

3. the problem with electoral-vote.com is which poll numbers he uses

They are not always the most accurate, and when he assumes a 1% difference in the poll is a lean for a candidate is not accurate. In reality that would be a draw

Please be aware that the undecided are not represented well in this either, and those votes will go to Kerry

[Cocoa]

13. another problem...

is that there seems to be some push to sell this site as some kind of authority.

Not sure if it's self-promotion or what, but I keep seeing it and asking myself, what is supposed to be so special about this site?

[TriMetFan]

7. Hi. I drive for a living here in Portland Oregon. (City Bus)

My route is from Gresham Or. to Portland to Sherwood Or. and I can tell you I see Kerry lawn signs and Stickers alot more then Bush. As a matter a fact I counted the car stickers yesterday and I saw in just 2.5 hrs 38 Kerry and just 6 for Bush. :)















Oregon Kerry Country

[oasis]

18. Your "visual" poll is good enough for me.

:thumbsup:

[liskddksil]

8. They also haven't updated since Friday

Theres an Oregon poll that has KErry up by 7 or 8.

[Longhorn]

10. He announced that he was going out of town for the weekend

and probably wouldn't get the map updated until later today.

[demokatgurrl]

11. This one doesn't look much better...

http://www.race2004.net/

but at least Kerry has NH.

[goclark]

12. Has who up by 7 ?

[liskddksil]

14. Kerry

message edited

[iwantmycountryback]

15. He's just putting it there b/c that's what he does

If people take the time to read what he has below than they will understand that he doesnt' think much of these polls.

[LisaL]

16. This guy just looks at the latest polls conducted by

others. He does not conduct his own polls. So, just ignore it, it doesn't provide any more information than other polls anyway.

[Awsi Dooger]

17. If Bush leads nationally by several points, he also leads NH and OR

Particularly if Nader is allowed on the ballot in Oregon, where he pulled more than 5% in 2000.

Once again, the overwhelming key is NATIONAL preference, not cherrypicked state by state desperation. With so many states that virtually mirror the national mood, a national edge of several points will naturally swipe from the other party's pool, states that would be lost in a 50/50 or even 51/49 scenario. These are not independent events, like so many at DU seem to believe. If Kerry gains 3 points nationally, he gains similarly in virtually every state, even the most partisan Republican.

New Hampshire and, to a lesser degree, Oregon are tossup states that we cannot take for granted. Oregon has been atop my danger list for 2004 for three years, along with Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Kerry is a significant underdog to win all four, therefore Florida or Ohio is critical.

Here are New Hampshire and Oregon, in relation to the national popular vote average at right. How we can assume victory or even a lead in new Hampshire is amazing. And note that Oregon no longer has a reliable Democratic slant. Even without Nader on the ballot, Clinton's '96 margin in Oregon was less than his national number.

New Hampshire:
'88: Bush (62.41 - 36.29) = + 18.40% Republican
'92: Clinton (38.86 - 37.64) = + 4.34% Republican
'96: Clinton (49.32 - 39.37) = + 1.42% Democrat
'00: Bush (48.07 - 46.80) = + 1.78% Republican

Oregon:
'88: Dukakis (51.28 - 46.61) = + 12.39% Democrat
'92: Clinton (42.48 - 32.53) = + 4.39% Democrat
'96: Clinton (47.15 - 39.06) = + 0.44% Republican
'00: Gore (46.96 - 46.52) = + 0.07% Republican

[Chili]

19. yeah, but did you look at Georgia?

There's only a 1-point difference, according to Rasmussen... Can that be? I'd love to believe that, but...

[mconvente]

21. 1 point difference

is sketchy. We can't be hypocritical here (and we're not). If we're gonna say the polls are bullshit for MD, OR, CA, and MN, they we gotta say just a 1 point lead for bush in GA is probably bullshit too.

[Chili]

22. I agree... but it's a Rasmussen poll...

...not Gallup or Strategic Vision or SurveyUSA. Not that I believe it - I expressed my doubt. Still, it makes you wonder.

[Bleacher Creature]

20. You're being too generous

First off, Maryland is NOT tied. Not in a million years.

Second, read his comments about New York. He states that it is totally implausible that Kerry is ahead there by 20 points. Yet, Gore won New York by 25 points in 2000.

That site is a waste of time. Ignore it.