Andrew Sullivan writes:

FAIR AND BALANCED: October 30 - Fox poll shows Bush up by 2. Headline: "Fox Poll: Bush Up By Two Points Over Kerry"

November 1 - Fox poll shows Kerry up by 2. Headline: "Fox National Poll: Voters Split." You really can't make this up. Well, as Neil Cavuto has opined, Osama was all but wearing a Kerry button.

ME:Okay, fair enough. Though there are quibbles to be quibbled about all that.

However, I'm distressed by the fact that once again Andrew is slipping into the trope of a typical -- as opposed to atypical (which is what he claims to be) -- Kerry supporter. Bashing Fox News when they deserve it is obviously fair game. But I haven't seen Andrew object once to the MSM coverage of polls when it was to Bush's disadvantage. There was a time when the New York Times biases would have concerned him more than comforted him. And Fox's biases would have had him looking for those quibbles I alluded to above.

For an example of what I'm getting at, here's an excerpt from the
Kerry Spot from last week (I confess to being too tired after a long day to reconstruct the data myself):

"... last week, Gallup had Bush ahead by eight, ABC had Bush ahead by five, Fox had Bush ahead by seven, Time had Bush ahead by five, Battleground had Bush ahead by four, he was ahead in the ABC/Washington Post tracking poll by five points or so much of the week... "And they still wrote that the race is tied!" Obi-Wan said with a laugh. "They don't need supporting evidence to go with the storyline!"

"Given modern polling techniques and the sure knowledge that lots of states (including three of the four biggest) are completely out of play, lots of voters feel freed up to vote for candidates of small 3rd parties who wouldn't under a single nationwide plurality vote. This hasn't been the traditional effect, but it wasn't traditionally possible to know with such certainty that a state was out of play.

"Any non-first-past-the-post system would strengthen third parties compared to any first-past-the-post system (and parliamentarism strengthens it compared to presidentialism). Runoffs, Borda counts, IRV, AV, whatever. But, if choosing between the current system and a nationwide plurality FPP, the current system probably marginally increases third-party voting.

"But that's all about small third parties-- Libertarian and Green-sized. When you have a third-party candidate who starts to hit 20-25%, the math is
going to change a lot. Then you will start to see the dynamic that elected Jesse Ventura (in a single statewide FPP plurality). Under the electoral college, a candidate with 25% support is still sure not to win. Under plurality, that's a very credible level-- given that 34% could be a winning plurality in a three-person race, and 26% in a four-person race. A third-party candidate with the support of Perot '92 or Wallace '68 does much better under FPP than under the electoral college."

This makes a great deal of sense to me.

Jacob Levy, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, emails in response to the question about why third parties don't run for congressional seats.

"This just isn't true. No less than John J. Miller has written about all the Libertarian candidates for Senate who, arguably, have tipped at least three races to the Democrats in recent years (Washington, Nevada, SD, if I recall correctly). Libertarians contest most Senate races, and have made it a point in recent years to contest a majority of US House races as well. The other actual parties-- Green, Constitution, etc, as opposed to one-man campaigns like Anderson 80, Perot 92/96, Nader 04-- also run some downticket candidates. Typically a moderately credible third party Senate candidate will get more coverage, as a share of the race's coverage, than will a third party presidential candidate. (The former might be let into debates, for one thing.) It's just that that coverage is all pretty localized; there's no national splash.

"At this point it's not as though capturing 10 US House seats is a much smaller mountain to climb than capturing the Presidency. After all, Democrats might do the latter this year but have no chance of doing the former. Only a tiny number of US House seats are competitive."

I've tended toward the view that the Supreme Court should have left the dispute to the political branches--the Florida legislature and the Congress. But I've just read an article by Peter Berkowitz and Benjamin Wittes in Villanova Law Review that has almost persuaded me to change my mind--and at least made the Court's decision seem more reasonable. Berkowitz and Wittes set out to argue against Laurence Tribe, whom they regard as the best of the critics of the decision. They do a very effective job of taking his case apart. They don't try to claim that the Constitution commanded Bush v. Gore and excluded all alternative resolutions, but merely say that the decision was reasonable and one of several courses that the Constitution left open.

Their case does depend, at a crucial point, on a modern conception of judicial review that most people hold and few people examine. That conception assumes a default rule that the courts are supposed to enforce the Constitution, with limited exceptions for, e.g., "political questions." If you don't accept that view of judicial review, then their account is less plausible. But the vitriol directed at the decision by people who do accept it is still overwrought.

The other day, I said in this space that Republicans over the last few years had been making an "idiotic" argument: namely, that it was unconstitutional to filibuster judicial nominees. Some people have asked me to defend the statement. I can't do it, because the statement was too strong. But I do think that both sides of the debate over the procedural norms that should govern the confirmation of judicial nominees have been exaggerating the extent to which their views are commanded by the Constitution. Tom Daschle has said that the "the Founding Fathers" wanted "controversial" bills and nominees to have to get a supermajority in the Senate. He has never provided any evidence for this view, and there is no reason to adopt it.

I think that the Constitution neither requires senators to set rules creating supermajority thresholds nor prohibits them from doing so; that judicial nominees' policy views should generally be off-limits in confirmation battles but that their judicial philosophies cannot be; that a president's nominees deserve no great deference from senators; and that conservatives are making procedural arguments about the evil of filibusters, the necessity of deference to presidents, and the irrelevance of ideology to confirmation fights in order to avoid a battle of first principles that they fear too much. When Bill Clinton imposed a litmus tests on his nominees--all of them had to support the Court's unconstitutional abortion jurisprudence--the appropriate response was not to give Clinton deference but rather to vote his nominees down. The Republicans' weak procedural arguments do not seem to have affected Democratic behavior under Bush, but they may box in Republicans under a future Democratic president.

Digital subscribers who are interested in a fuller explanation of my views can find one in the last third of this article.

In a generally amusing and worthwhile piece, Jeff Taylor offers this snark at yours truly:

Apparently the prospect of Democratic efforts to register thousands of new voters in each battle ground state has pushed Bush supporters over the edge in their search for a GOP equalizer. For example, National Review's Jonah Goldberg mused repeatedly on the Bush underpolling theme, positing that there exists such animus toward George Bush among the public that voters are actually ashamed to tell pollsters they support the guy.

Me: While I can understand why some might think I was stretching things with the underpolling stuff, that doesn't mean I wasn't being sincere. My understanding is that Republicans underpolled in numerous states in 2000. And, from the email I get from people who are terrified to sport Bush bumper stickers alone, I think there's probably quite a bit of underpolling going on this year. Whether it's enough to make a difference remains to be seen of course. I have no objection to Taylor's rather tepid objections to the suggestion that Bush is underpolling, but I do object that to the insinuation that I was offering the possibility in anything like bad faith.

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf Calls On DNC To Stop Fraudulent Phone Calls Claiming He Has Endorsed Senator Kerry

TAMPA, FL – Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf today issued the following statement:

"The Democratic National Committee is making fraudulent phone calls claiming that I have endorsed Senator Kerry. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I demand that they stop immediately.

"Senator Kerry opposed the Reagan defense build-up that won the Cold War. Senator Kerry opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Senator Kerry proposed billions in intelligence cuts after the first attack on the World Trade Center. Senator Kerry voted against funds to equip our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with supplies like body armor and ammunition.

"I am supporting President Bush for reelection, because he is the candidate who has demonstrated the conviction needed to defeat terrorism. In contrast to the President's steadfast determination to defeat our enemies, Senator Kerry has a record of weakness that gives me no confidence in his ability to fight and win the War on Terror. His attempt to make up for these deficiencies by falsifying my endorsement only confirms my impression that he is not the man we need to lead our nation."

The Keystone state is getting no love from the national pundits. They are obsessed with Ohio and Florida at the expense of everything else. But let me tell you one thing, the conservative Republican base is fired up in Pa and if Kerry wins, it will not be for lack of enthusiasm and effort. All this nonsense about a backlash against Bush because of his support for Specter in the Senate primary is utter rubbish. Conservatives can see the forest for the trees. Ms. Lopez, do not be shocked if Pennsylvania comes through for Bush. I was in PA all weekend in Lancaster/York Counties and those folks are watching the clock, counting the minutes, just waiting for their turn to vote for Bush!

From a reader:

Slate assumed the probabilities for Ohio and Florida are independent, giving the president a 25% chance of winning both. This assumption is wrong - if polls are underepresenting Bush (or Kerry) votes in one state then they are likely to do the same in both. Note that Tradesports has a "Bush wins Ohio and Florida" contract. It has been trading between 35-42 over the weekend. Not 25 as predicted by Slate. The people at Tradesports are betting the outcome of the two races are not independant.

I wish I knew about it when I wrote today's column, but all it does is confirm what I was saying. If Kerry wins, the Moore-ons will claim it as an anti-war victory and they will be right in doing so. An excerpt:

To My Friends on the Left:

Okay, Kerry isn’t everything you wished he would be. You’re right. He’s not you! Or me. But we’re not on the ballot – Kerry is. Yes, Kerry was wrong to vote for authorization for war in Iraq but he was in step with 70% of the American public who was being lied to by Bush & Co. And once everyone learned the truth, the majority turned against the war. Kerry has had only one position on the war – he believed his president.
President Kerry had better bring the troops home right away. My prediction: Kerry’s roots are anti-war. He has seen the horrors of war and because of that he will avoid war unless it is absolutely necessary. Ask most vets. But don’t ask someone whose only horror was when he arrived too late for a kegger in Alabama.
There’s a reason Bush calls Kerry the Number One Liberal in the Senate – THAT’S BECAUSE HE IS THE NUMBER ONE LIBERAL IN THE SENATE! What more do you want? My friends, this is about as good as it gets when voting for the Democrat. We don’t have the #29 Liberal running or the #14 Liberal or even the #2 Liberal – we got #1! When has that ever happened?
Those of us who may be to the left of the #1 liberal Democrat should remember that this year conservative Democrats have had to make a far greater shift in their position to back Kerry than we have. We’re the ones always being asked to make the huge compromises and to always vote holding our noses. No nose holding this time. This #1 liberal is not the tweedledee to Bush’s tweedledum.

So many emails like this:

I have over 5 projects due out AND I CANNOT WORK!!! I CAN'T STOP READING THE CORNER!!!

Stop the madness...I need more mountain dew and pizza pockets.

Bleary eyed and neurotic,

The email I posted earlier has inspired one blogger to argue in favor of the Electoral College, largely because it discourages third parties. I should clarify that I'm not arguing against the Electoral College because it discourages third parties, or arguing for it for the same reason. I'm trying to figure out whether it discourages them and how. I think that's what my emailer was doing, too.

Here's another email, from a political scientist: "Your e-mailer who suggested that third parties would gain from abolition of the electoral college by having some leverage in a runoff may have been thinking of some of the more prominent proposals to replace the EC. You have to think of the alternatives that have actually been put forward. One well-known one was Birch Bayh's proposal in the 1970s, which set the threshold for winning the presidency at 40% of the popular vote. Why so low? Because Bayh recognized 1) that many of our presidents who have won a majority in the EC have won only pluralities in the popular vote--a trend that continued in the last three elections; and 2) you have to set the plurality threshold low enough to account for the possibility of multiple third parties seeing a chance they didn't have before under the EC. Bayh's proposal included a runoff election if no one reached 40%, and as the late Martin Diamond argued, there was every reason to expect the runoff to become a regular event as people no longer thought of a third-party vote as thrown away. I don't know any EC abolitionists who do not propose a runoff--indicating the universal recognition of third-party strength increasing under such 'direct' systems.

"As for third-party voters currently feeling an incentive so to vote in 'safe' states, I doubt that accounts for many. Without the EC, there's no such thing any more as a safe state, meaning that every individual vote now 'matters,' but with a new twist--getting your guy enough votes to force a runoff and gain him some bargaining power. Current third-party voters even in safe states know that their vote is still only symbolic, not something done with an achievable political objective in mind."

From a reader:

You're right to pick on Sullivan for latching onto to Slate's laughable bit of spin disguised as mathematical analysis, but you're not quite right on the reason. First off, if Bush loses both FL and OH, he's almost surely toast. He can't flip WI and win. He'd need to flip several states. The basic analysis goes like this. Bush needs 37 electoral votes (to tie) out of FL (27), OH (20), PA (21), MI (17), WI (10), MN (10), and IA (7). You can figure out for yourself how many combinations get Bush to 37. There are lots. But if he loses FL and OH, he needs to pull off some relatively big upsets to get there.

The problem with the dopey 70-75% chance of winning analysis is that it looks at the uncertainty of Bush winning Bush states only. (I think this is what you were getting at, but you thought it was simpler than it is.) Yes, FL and OH are toss-ups, and I'll accept that each candidate has a 50-50 chance of winning each state. If we KNEW for SURE how every other state would go, and if we KNEW for SURE that Bush needed to win both, then Bush's chances of winning the election would be only 25%. But we DON'T know what's going to happen elsewhere for SURE. We know probabilities in lots of other important states, most notably those that I listed above. And it is important to note that ALL of the other states I listed -- all of which are competitive to varying degrees -- are all former Gore states that Kerry is essentially counting on.

Just to give you a relatively simple example, let's assume that Bush and Kerry have an equal chance of winning FL and OH, and that Kerry has a 70% chance of winning PA. Bush needs ANY two of these. And what are his chances of winning ANY two. The math is a bit more complex (I won't set out the calculation here) but it works out to roughly a 60% chance of Kerry winning. That's a 15% drop that arises simply because you consider the possibility of Kerry losing a state that he is favored to win but is not impossible for Bush to win.

Add another state, even one that you can assume Bush is even less likely to win than PA, and it gets better for Bush. For example, let's assume Kerry has an 80% chance of winning MI. Again, the calculation is somewhat more complicated (but not very -- I'm sure Derb can check the numbers), then we find that Bush is actually FAVORED TO WIN!!

That's right, if you assume (reasonably, I think) that ALL 2000 results hold except NM and NH flip, then Bush needs ANY TWO of FL, OH, MI and PA to win (OH and MI would produce a tie, which is a Bush win unless an elector is faithless). This is true even when you assume that Bush has a 50% chance of winning FL and OH, a 30% chance of winning PA and a 20% chance of winning MI. My calculation produces a Bush chance of winning of 51.5%.

We could go on. The next most likely states to flip are IA (7) and WI (10) and MN (10). The calculations above assume ALL of these break Kerry's way. If we add in uncertainty with respect to these, the odds of Bush's win get better. Of course, we could add in uncertainty in Bush's states -- like NM and CO -- and we could go on. But I suspect that if you were to fold in ALL of the uncertainty, you'd still end up with Bush being slightly -- and I mean slightly -- favored to win.

Anyone who tells you they are 75% confident of an outcome either is lying or reading the data in a way that filters out uncertainty that cuts AGAINST their guess.

And from another reader:

They are in no way assuming all swing states go to Kerry or even that Kerry wins Wisconsin; this is their analysis, which doesn't sound optimistic:

Florida moves to Kerry, giving him 299 electoral votes. But his lead is shakier than it looks. Both Florida and Ohio are on a knife's edge. We also think Gallup has exposed Wisconsin as a Tier 2 state, winnable for Bush with the right turnout. Kerry's consolation is that both Iowa and New Mexico now look winnable for him, and as a package, they would negate the loss of Wisconsin or Minnesota. Kerry can now afford to lose any of the following combinations: 1) Florida, Iowa, and New Mexico; 2) Florida, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire; 3) Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire; 4) Ohio and Pennsylvania; or 5) Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. The good news for Republicans is that even if Kerry wins all the other states within his reach, he can't survive the loss of Ohio and Florida.

John McLaughlin of McLaughlin & Associates conducted a three-day roll of 500 likely Alaska voters (MOE: +/- 4.5%) on Thursday and Friday, October 28th & 29th, and Sunday, October 31st, for the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). The key findings are as follows:

1. The U.S. Senate head-to-head shows Senator Lisa Murkowski opening up a five-point lead over former Governor Tony Knowles:

“If the election for U.S. Senate in Alaska were held today, and the candidates were Tony Knowles, the Democrat candidate, and Lisa Murkowski, the Republican candidate, for whom would you vote?”

Murkowski 48.0%

Knowles 42.6%

Undecided 6.6%



2. U.S. Senate favorables/unfavorables:

Murkowski Knowles

Favorable 52.4% 51.0%

Unfavorable 39.0% 41.8%

From a reader:

Jonah,

For all those on the Corner who think we're going to
lose NH, I went up there with a friend this weekend to
volunteer with the 72 Hour Team.

They sent us to the Dover area, where they said they
were short on volunteers and where Bush is at his
weakest in the state (it's southern NH, near the
border with MA - it's largely a combo of working class
and Boston commuters).

Well, we got there Saturday midday in a steady rain
and there were 50 volunteers out already going
door-to-door. That continued all weekend. The
response from the Bush voters in the area was
enthusiastic - lots of "Hell, yeah" and "Go get 'em."

Further, upon crossing into Maine and an inspirational
drive by Walker Point, we saw tons of Bush signs - and
southern Maine is not the conservative part of the
state.

In addition, the Bush volunteers on the ground
reported that the NH 72 Hour Team is doing things in
conservative northern NH that have never been done
before to get out the vote, and that if you drive
through that region, you see tons of hand-made Bush
signs (as the regional BC04 offices are pretty far
apart up there).

Finally, the cover of the Saturday Foster's Daily
Democrat (apparently the local paper in the Dover
area) had a huge, great picture of Bush with the
headline "A Hero's Welcome" right next to a side
column about OBL's return to the scene.

All in all, we were pretty pumped up by the weekend,
and if all the states where Bush is within 1 or 2
points look like NH on the ground, we're going to win.

Hey, if you think you're on edge about the election take a lookat this. First, here's the opening graf from today's G-File:

followed the Florida recount pretty carefully. I certainly can't swear I read every story in every paper straight through to the end; but I would be very surprised if I missed entirely any mention of Floridian voters' being beheaded for failing to color in the ovals on their ballots correctly. I never heard anybody say anything like "Sol Fischbein! This chad is hanging, and so will you!"

Pretty clear that's a fairly jokey begining right? Here's the second email I got in response to the column:

You followed the Florida recount pretty closely, huh?

That's funny, because ultimately there WAS no recount, you Nazi hack. Your
anti-democratic, pro-corporate Supreme Court stopped it!

No worries. We're ready for you clowns dirty tricks this time and Kerry is
going to win, DESPITE your party's efforts to suppress democracy.

A day is coming when more and more Americans will see your ilk as the
pathetic shills that you are.

Andrew Sullivan makes much of this "caveat" at Slate -- which now says the election would go to Bush if held today:

Here is the math that matters: If all the states in which the data lean discernibly to either candidate vote as the polls suggest, the election will come down to Florida and Ohio. If Bush takes both, he wins. If Kerry takes either, he wins. We assess the probability in each state independently, and we assume that neither state's turnout affects the other's. Since the odds in each of the two states are approximately 50-50, with a tiny edge to Bush, the combined probability of Kerry winning the election is about 70 to 75 percent.

I suppose this is all true. But someone should make clear to Andrew that it's all true only if Kerry wins Wisconsin (and several other swing states). In other words the probability is 70 to 75 percent if Kerry's 100% sure to win Wisconsin. If Kerry doesn't win Wisconsin than even if Kerry wins Ohio or Florida he still loses. Indeed, if the race boils down to the slate scenario Kerry loses if any of Slate's Kerry states go the other way, including not only the biggies like Ohio but also New Hampshire or Hawaii.

G-File is up, fyi.

(and link is fixed).

Rep. Pitts decries last-minute tactic to keep Lancaster seniors from voting

Weekend calls urged seniors to stay home Tuesday

LANCASTER, PA - Congressman Joe Pitts (PA-16) made the following statement today regarding multiple reports of deceitful calls to Lancaster County seniors apparently designed to suppress turnout in this heavily Republican county. Several reports were received by a Lancaster County elected official today from seniors complaining that callers had told them that "problems" had been identified with their registrations and that they might be wasting their time in trying to vote this year. Congressman Pitts is the Lancaster County Chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"This is the lowest kind of last-minute dirty trick I can think of," said Congressman Pitts. "John Kerry has no plan to win the War on Terror and no plan to grow Pennsylvania's economy. So Democrats are trying to deceive seniors into thinking they cannot vote on Tuesday. Pennsylvanians have long known Kerry is willing to do anything he thinks will help him politically. Wrongly telling seniors they are not registered to vote crosses the line. "It's not surprising that Kerry's supporters would want seniors to stay away from the polls on Tuesday considering Kerry's repeated support for higher taxes on Social Security benefits and Kerry's opposition to the President's prescription drug bill. Outrageous scare tactics aren't going to stop seniors from voting for President Bush, who has always stood up for seniors."

Congressman Pitts surmised that the complaints received Sunday indicated a much larger volume of misleading calls.

"These calls were clearly targeted, which suggests that this is a sophisticated effort to keep seniors from the polls in Lancaster County. Anyone who is concerned that there might be a problem with their registration should go to the polls anyway. If there is a problem, they can ask for a provisional ballot."

From a reader re: Zogby vs. Gallup:

The difference in the Zogby (B-7) and Gallup (B+8) Wisconsin polls amounts to about 8 sigma! To put this in perspective, there's an old statistics joke (perhaps the only one) about a student who asks how rare a 6 sigma event is and is told, "Well, the second coming occurs at 4." At least one, and probably both of these polls are seriously, seriously flawed. Remember, "margin of error" only makes sense for an unbiased sample

Beware the Gallup Poll. That 49-49 result is due to Gallup's decision to allocate the remaining undecided voters based upon a tried-and-true formula -- 9 to 1 for the challenger.

Pew, on the other hand, decided to allocate the undecideds they found equally. This is what Pew had to say: "Pew's final survey suggests that the remaining undecided vote may break only slightly in Kerry's favor."

So, it appears that Pew's data told them something that the CW of undecided voters, i.e. their breaking toward the incumbent, is off. Gallup just did what my 9th grade geometry called a "plug and chug." As Polipundit notes, The New York Times survey indicates the same result as Pew. They found that undecideds do not seem to be breaking for Kerry.

Sorry, that's not a furball in my throat, that's my response to Zogby's "Youth Poll" in which he found that Kerry is leading Bush by fifteen points among young people (55% to 40%). Of course, he used as his data set something called the "Rock the Vote Mobile Register" -- a joint venture of Rock the Vote and Motorola.

Here's a prediction. If you used the Mobile Register of the Christian Coalition, Bush would be doing much better and it would be about as reliable.

Paul Gigot writes for opinionjournal.com's "Political Diary": "Most election predictions from journalists aren't worth much, but for years I've been consulting a Republican demographer whose track record has typically been very good, especially regarding Congressional races. So for what it's worth, here's how he saw things late Friday:

"White House: A Bush win that includes Florida, Ohio and New Mexico, but not Michigan, Pennsylvania or New Hampshire. He says Catholics, ethnic Scandinavians (especially Norwegians) and the rural vote should help Bush win Iowa and Wisconsin, and get him close in Minnesota, where the Twin Cities vote turnout for Kerry will be crucial. Overall, he says, this year's voting trends look like 2000 only more so, with cities and the older suburbs going more strongly Democratic and the smaller towns and exurbs more emphatically for George Bush. Catholics are moving toward Bush.

"Senate: He sees a GOP sweep of the two Carolinas, Georgia and Florida, plus a John Thune win over Tom Daschle in South Dakota. Louisiana goes to a December runoff. Those five GOP pickups will be offset by losses in Illinois, Colorado, and probably Alaska, where Governor Frank Murkowski's nepotism in appointing his daughter Lisa may lose what should be a safe GOP seat. Tom Coburn should hold Oklahoma, thanks to Mr. Bush's big margins. That's a net GOP gain of two seats.

"House: A gain of four or more in Texas, thanks to redistricting, should yield a net GOP gain nationwide of two or three seats. 'I'd like to get to 230,' he says, up from the current 227 to 205 split (with two GOP-leaning seats unfilled). Other than Texas, he says, the GOP should pick up a seat in northern Kentucky and maybe one each in Louisiana and Oregon. But the party is likely to lose one in Connecticut (Rob Simmons), one or two of the open seats in Pennsylvania, an open seat in Colorado (McInnis), as well as Phil Crane in Illinois. You can certainly see why Democrats hate Tom DeLay, the architect of the GOP's Texas gerrymander. Without him, they'd probably be gaining seats in the House this year.

"The caveat in all of these estimates is that they don't anticipate a late-breaking trend among undecided voters for the Democrats, of the kind that happened in 2000 and surprised everybody, including my source."

Two emails from Summit County, Ohio:

Jonah - Just read your posts on the two Ohio views. I live in Hudson which
is in northern Summit County. Hudson is probably one of the most Republican
areas of a Democratic county (Akron Summit's largest city). I was visited
twice over the weekend (Sat. and Sun) by GOTV volunteers. Based on my
little corner of the world, there seems to be a lot activity going on, the
party seems organized, yard signs and bumper stickers everywhere and the
party even has storefront space downtown. It is true that Bush is being
pounded on TV here in NE Ohio, both from Kerry and the 527s. There are Bush
ads up, but from a sheer numbers standpoint it seems like 2-3 Kerry ads for
every Bush add. The old axiom is the democrat must carry Cuyahoga county by
100,000 votes to win the state. If the weather is as bad as they say it
might be (rain and thunder is the forecast thru 6pm tomorrow), don't know if
the democrats will be able to do that.

And...

I read on the corner where some guy from Summit County in Ohio has not received any republican phone messages. Well, I also live in Summit County (Akron), am a registered Republican, however I have been bombarded by Bush phone messages. From Mayor Koch, to Laura Bush, to Arnold, to Rudy, I must get three or four messages a day. I even think Cosmo called me because there was a woof on one of the messages.

"I've been hired by MSNBC to blog the election. I'm up in NYC right
now. Of four bloggers, I am the only conservative.

"They've also set up a Citizen Journalist section of their site.
Citizens are encouraged to write in and let MSNBC know what's going on
with the election in their area.

"Kos, Atrios, and other lefty sites have plugged it (as has the DNC) and
we aren't getting ANY conservative citizen journalists.

"Could y'all put something up at the Corner?"

Done, and congrats on the gig. The link is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6348977/

Here's what Cost has to say, btw:

Gallup: This poll is truly the gold standard in presidential polling. They leave their partisan identification unweighted. This lends itself to swings in partisan identification, but it can enable it to pick up the shifting partisanship of the electorate. Gallup also has gobs and gobs of demographic statistics available to its subscribers. They have a demographic analysis that is perfectly in line with industry standards. They are the best poll in the business. Bar none. In particular, they have a good reputation for filtering unlikely voters out of their samples.

Zogby: Drummond seems to think that Zogby simply fell ass-backward into his present notoriety. Zogby predicted 1996 accurately and came close in 2000. However, his track record is generally lousy. Zogby has a devastating methodological problem -- his polls are not conducted randomly. He uses regional quotas. He is the only one of all these polls (that make any methodology known) that employs this technique. Furthermore, Zogby does not conform his data to industry standards. Rather, he uses -- among other sources -- his previous data. Neither of the standard-setters in the polling industry accept this practice. Zogby also weights his polls to strictly conform with the 2000 partisan turnout results -- a result that BC04 has spent tens of millions of dollars to change. Zogby, a supposedly independent pollster, also called the race for Kerry...IN THE SPRING! Zogby is also one of the chief practitioners of the internet poll, which is really quite unacceptable. Because I have (unfortunately) used Zogby here at this site, I will quote the very estimable Drummand at length (consider it part of my pennance): "All in all, Zogby’s habit of confusing his personal opinion with data-driven conclusions, his admitted practice of manipulating the respondent pool and his demographic weights, by standards not accepted anywhere else, along with mixing Internet polls with telephone interview results, forces me to reject his polls as unacceptable; they simply cannot be verified, and I strongly warn the reader that there is no established benchmark for the Zogby reports, even using previous Zogby polls, because he has changed his practices from his own history."

November 1, 2004 -- WASHINGTON - Osama bin Laden warned in his October Surprise video that he will be closely monitoring the state-by-state election returns in tomorrow's presidential race - and will spare any state that votes against President Bush from being attacked, according to a new analysis of his statement.

The respected Middle East Media Research Institute, which monitors and translates Arabic media and Internet sites, said initial translations of a key portion of bin Laden's video rant to the American people Friday night missed an ostentatious bid by the Saudi-born terror master to divide American voters and tilt the election towards Democratic challenger John Kerry.

MEMRI said radical Islamist commentators monitored over the Internet this past weekend also interpreted the key passage of bin Laden's diatribe to mean that any U.S. state that votes to elect Bush on Tuesday will be considered an "enemy" and any state that votes for Kerry has "chosen to make peace with us."

The statement in question is when bin Laden said on the tape: "Your security is up to you, and any state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security."

That sentence followed a lengthy passage in the video in which bin Laden launches personal attacks on the president.

Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI, said bin Laden used the Arabic term "ay-wilaya" to refer to a "state" in that sentence.

That term "specifically refers to an American state, like Tennessee," Carmon said, adding that if bin Laden were referring to a "country" he would have used the Arabic word "dawla."

MEMRI also translated an analysis of bin Laden's statement from the Islamist Web site al-Qal'a, well known for posting al-Qaeda messages, which agreed that bin Laden's use of the word "ay-wilaya" was meant as a "warning to every U.S state separately."

"It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president, it means that it chose to fight us and we will consider it an enemy to us, and any state that will vote against Bush, it means that it chose to make peace with us and we will not characterize it as an enemy," the Web site said, according to MEMRI's translation.

That's 286 to 252 is exactly where they have the race if it were held today.

From a reader:

I live in Columbus, Ohio. I have never seen anything like the GOP GOTV here. (I am not a volunteer so this rosy picture is straight scoop). I am getting four to five telephone calls a day from the GOP. Some are recordings of famous types like Mayor Giuliani and Rev. Billy Graham. Others are live volunteers making sure we know where to vote and that we'll be voting for Bush. Direct mail comes everyday. When I left Mass on Sunday, Bush fliers were on all the cars touting Bush's stance on all the "values" issues. Lit droppers showed up Saturday with a nice packet focusing on Bush and the local GOP candidates. (I live in a precinct that will certainly go for Kerry). This morning, a hundred or so Bush supporters were downtown by the Statehouse holding BC 04 signs, doing cheers, etc. I'd say TV and radio ads are 50/50. Bush is running a nice ad on the radio with Giuliani and Ed Koch. We'll see tomorrow how well the GOP does in getting people to the polls. But from what I've seen so far, if Bush loses Ohio, it won't be for lack of trying.

From another reader:

Jonah, I live in Ohio -- Summit County. My wife and I are both registered R's, we have not received one republican phone call or message left for us. Last week and thru yesterday, I've had 6 ACT call's and 1 from Bill Clinton, and kerry ads being negative about bush vs. any bush ad are probably are probably 3 to 1 kerry ads. We are being bombarded with commercials, and many of them I believe do resonate with Ohio voters. One in particular, mentions President Bush speaking to at a manufacturer --- Timken, last year (promising to work hard for them or something to that effect) and then this year they are closing the plant (over 1,000 jobs). The problem is that Republican's just don't have an answer for this in Ohio, and if they do, they haven't responded via the airwaves, and this is why it is so close in Ohio. The R's have not given a response that resonates, and even the the economy has improved nationally, it is lagging behind in Ohio. If the Dem's just had a less liberal candidate, GW would not win Ohio, IMHO. That being said, the R's could have struck back with a commercial with an example of job creation in Ohio due in part to the tax cuts and the growing national economy....this is the type of ad that would have resonated in Ohio.

I have a lot of friends who are holding their noses when they vote for Bush. I have sympathy for their views, I really do. Much of what Bush has done -- and hasn't -- bugs me too. But I ask you folks to look at it from a slightly different perspective. If thinking in terms of who the better candidate is doesn't work for you, think of it in terms of which candidate's victory will cause the most happiness among the worst people. If Kerry wins some truly horrible people will be happy. Some perfectly fine and decent folks will be happy too, of course. But if Bush wins, Michael Moore won't be on the Today Show the next day cheering and hugging his friends. Katie Couric will wear black. Alec Baldwin won't give interviews. P Diddy will go away. Susan Sarandon will mope. Al Franken still won't be funny, but it will be easier to laugh at him. Jon Stewart will go back to comedy. Terry McAuliffe will go down in history as the most disastrous DNC Chair in modern history.

But if Bush loses, all of these people will be gloating and skipping with joy.

Vote your fears people.

I'm still reading through this, but it appears that it's fairly good news for Bush:

Some highlights from the summary (which is very tightly written so I'm actually quoting big, big chunks of it):