But... but Kerry!!!!

Interesting analysis. Thanks.

I haven't tried to analyze any data but have my own micro data set as measured on a political board where I post...Libertypost. I've seen scads (admittedly, a non-technical measurement) of posters doing their own version of "I voted republican in the past but will not vote for them because...")...then fill in the blank with spending/Iraq/immigration/whole list of things. I believe they're hemorrhaging voters and don't even know about it because none of these people, deemed reliable in the past, are calling in to update their disaffected status in the vaunted pubbie databases.

I'm looking forward to Tues night.

Great info, Ruy... I've passed it on to my brother, a Poli Sci prof at a major university here in Michigan. He'll love the quantitative aspect especially.

The contest that's been totally mystifying to me is the Senate race in Connecticut.

Survey USA's most recent poll of presidential approval (10/17) has Bush's disapproval rating in Connecticut at 67%; there are only three other states in the Union with higher Bush disapproval ratings.

Given this number, how is it that Lieberman, a candidate who has made no secret of his support for Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues, and who is being openly supported by the White House and the national GOP, continues to lead Lamont in the polls by fairly hefty margins?

Put another way, how is it that substantial numbers of Connecticut voters can detest George Bush yet feel perfectly comfortable in voting for his single biggest Democratic supporter (some would say enabler)? In race after race across the country, we're being told that Bush is toxic for GOP candidates, and all your polling information indicates that the gains for the Dems in the House will be substantial.

How is it that Connecticut is so different? Or does the Lamont/Lieberman race indicate that dislike of Bush may not translate automatically to votes for Democratic candidates?

Lamont is a terrible candidate and campaigner. Say what you want about Holy Joe, he is experienced pol and has been for 40 years.

We can't call Lamont a bad campaigner after his primary win. He didn't just become stupid one day.

Lamont/Lieberman might just be the results of a teach the bum a lesson, not throw the bum out. Joe's willingness to run as an indie probably made it much easier for somebody to vote against him in the primary.

Lamont would have won easily if Liberman didn't enter the race, but there are plenty of times when the protest canidate takes out the "safe" incumbent only to lose in the general election.

i hope your analysis remains true,if it doesn`t under a bush rethug administration for the next 2 years laws may be passed that will eliminate your ability to post such info.peace

bluestatedon: "The contest that's been totally mystifying to me is the Senate race in Connecticut."

As David Hannum (and not P.T. Barnum, as is commonly believed) once told a newspaper in 1869, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Apparently, a disproportionate number of them currently reside in Connecticut.

Lieberman is the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with.

A big chunk of Connecticut's economy depends
on Lieberman bringing home defense contracts.
Often if a member of congress is perceived
as being "good for the district" voters don't
really care where he stands on national issues.
Believe me, I'm from Curt Weldon's district
and we sent him back 11 times! Most of my
neighbors will vote for him even after seeing
the FBI raid his and his daughter's homes and
carry out boxes of documents! The sentiment
of "He was there for us, let's be there for him"
is very real in my district, and, I'll guess,
Connecticut.

The idea that a gaffe by a Democratic politician or some Rovian stroke of "genius" is going to turn this election around for Republicans is preposterous. This is not a superificial shift in public perception, it is a fundamental one in American attitudes. The historical pendulum swing back toward the center is occurring as an increasing number of Americans believe they've been sold a bill of goods by the right wing and are seeking moderation. Whether it swings all the way to a liberal tilt remains to be seen (I doubt it, since the most prominent Democrats who seem destined to capture GOP-held seats are centrist), but the reign of the neocon movement is clearly over. For the Republican Party to remain viable in 2008 and beyond, it's going to have to restore its less radical conservative ideals and leadership and purge its extreme elements.

John MacArthur's
A Pre-election Tour of Waterbury, Connecticut
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1101-26.htm

helps reduce the mystery of Connecticut a bit.

E.g., in this post industrial-age,
"...Waterbury's leading employer has become Waterbury, which explains a lot about local politics. Jarjura told me the city employs 3,000 people -- after that come the two major hospitals at about 2,000 apiece.

Which makes Waterbury unhealthily reliant on the state and federal governments for survival, which in turn makes patronage politics central in deciding whom you back if you're the local party leader. Simply put, Jarjura believes that Lieberman, with 18 years in the Senate and lots of friends in the Bush White House, can deliver money to Waterbury faster and in bigger quantities than a freshman senator named Lamont, who owes Jarjura nothing. Indeed, the city is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's denial of $2.75 million for flood-damaged roads (the city apparently tried to sneak in ordinary street repairs)."

As a resident of CT (and a Lamont supporter), I don't think the published polls are accurately capturing this race. It is, and will be, much tighter than it looks by Election Day. My summary prediction of the outcome is that Lamont will win with 43%, Leiberman 42%, and Schlesinger will surprise with about 15-16% of the vote.

Yeap, looking more and more like "lame duck" for Thanksgiving this year.

And who knows, maybe we'll have impeachment sauce by Christmas since Bush doesn't want to rid the war of Rummy.

I am assuming that a lot of that GOTV effort by the GOP will reach some Republicans and many Independents who are very unhappy with the Republicans in office. So I think their 72 hour push to get people to vote may help motivate some of their target audience to get out and vote for Democrats.

I agree, that the GOP claims of superior "micro-targeting" are just more hype. If their methodology is as great as they claim I don't think I, nor so many other staunch Democrats that I know, would get the mailings and robo calls that we get from them.

The hit on Lieberman, obviously, is the War and the Judas Kiss. But the fact is that he has done a remarkable job on some core Dem issues during his tenure, most notably on environmental issues (he worked tirelessly to protect the Arctic Refuge, for example).

This race is a weird one-- no doubt. But if Lamont loses, it is not representive of Dem fortunes... instead its a tribute to the voters of Conn. seeing beyond a 1-issue race and assessing their best interests. Democracy in action.

Does anyone know if Ruy Teixeira pronounces his name the full-on Portuguese way? I'm just curious.

All this is true, if and only if, the votes are counted correctly. Worries about this are no longer just for fringe elements and paranoids. (See tonight's HBO documentary and discussions in almost any major computer magazine -- Ars Technica is particularly good.)
There are already reports of voting machines where people have tried to vote Democratic and the summary has shown them voting Republican.

So, vote, but if you can, demand a paper ballot. Check your summary sheets, or anything else that shows how you voted before you make it official. Answer exit polls, they are the best safeguard. And if the results in your precinct seem fishy, don't just grumble, yell like hell, and if there's a suit to demand a revote, join it.

And anything questionable call the paper, the tv station, any available news organization. (Even if it is conservative/Republican, it might stuill be honest. Lou Dobbs is hardly left wing -- and some of his positions sicken me -- but on this issue he has given the best coverage on tv.)

And what about the Diebold factor?

"the GOP needs something more to hold back the wave"

Yup. Sounds like this will be a good test case for how much Diebold can really do. Will they beat their 2004 probability? (1 in 180 billion chance that results were fair...) Will they achieve one in a trillion this time? Will the media again say, "Gee whiz. The exit polls were obviously all wrong / the GOP GOTV is miraculous / [or pick some other excuse]"?

Perhaps Conn is actually pretty simple: the voters are motivated to vote against Republicans, but not necessarily to vote for Democrats. Since Lieberman will vote with the Democrats on organizing the Senate, a vote for him is not a vote for continued Republican control. Which suggests, since he is way ahead, that Republican control (combined with inept execution and control of the Republicans by the religious right), and not Republican policies per se, are what the voters object to.

Lieberman's likely win in Connecticut isn't so hard to figure. The Democratic Party offered no support for Lamont beyond expected lip service immediately following the primary. Where are the party stalwarts campaigning at Lamont's side? What kind of backing is being offered by Senate campaign coordinator Chuck Schumer? The answers speak for themselves. The polls have consistently shown Lieberman is drawing 35-37% percent of his support from Democratic voters. The party's leadership, such as it is, is responsible for that. The Dems may win the house and pick up seats in the Senate but at this date the party stands stand for nothing more than deserving to lose less than the Republicans.
dh

And don't we start hitting some diminishing returns along the line here? Even if they do increase turnout, there's fewer and fewer new voters to reach...especially this year.

So did bush apologize yet? (For the war not some verbal gaffe.)

When the GOP retains control of the House and Senate next week, they will point to their super duper 72 hour push. The real reason will be election fraud, but the 72 hour push will be what the GOP and the media talks about ad nauseum. Months down the road, a few reports will surface about election fraud but will get little attention. Things will never change as long as e-voting system companies can keep the software source code a secret.

I agree with Phil.

Anyone know what machines are in use in TN,VA, and MO?

I don't know about the whole state, but here in St. Louis, MO - in the city and county - there are two NEW types of voting machines. We have a choice between an electronic machine and an optical scan machine. I don't know which is 'better'. Better being less prone to rigging/manipulation/fraud. Anyone have a suggestion as to which type is more difficult to rig? I assumed the optical scan because then they have a physical copy of my vote that can be reviewed at a later date.

Get over it...

None of these numbers matter as long as they count the votes.

I am a Dem and I hope the Dems win big.

However, the GOP has always been overrepresented because of its phenomenal (by US standards) voter turnout. As yourself: do you know any Dems/Lefties who don't vote? Of course you do.

Now ask yourself: do you know a single Republican of voting age that doesn't vote. It might be a coincidence, but I do not know a single one, nor do any of friends. Do you?

Chuck's point is dead on - The GOP faithful are Soviet-like in their lockstep uniformity and dedication to voting for Republican candidates. They may be pedophiles or axe murderers, but the knuckle-draggers will slavishly vote for them....

Alex, the key thing is whether the machine produces a paper record which *you* can verify is correct before it goes in a secure box.

If the electronic machine can do that, fine. If it can't, the optical scan is preferable.

But let's never forget they cheat.

Alex >"...I assumed the optical scan because then they have a physical copy of my vote that can be reviewed at a later date."

That and most (all ?) of the optical machines check the ballot as it is scanned in & will kick the ballot out for correction if it detects any "mistakes"

Go optical !

"America is great because she is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." - Alexis de Tocqueville

Yes, but Chuck forgets...

While many GOPs are very loyal and dependable, many NEVER POLLED and incredibly underrepresented young people vote Democratic. Yes, their participation is often lacking, but nonetheless, there's a whole TON of young college-aged voters who are never polled (cell phones!) but overwhelmingly vote to stem cells, gay marriage, and Dems in general...

All the GOP's spin about their awesome GOTV operation is really about laying the groundwork to explain voting results that contradict the polls. They are planning to diebold this election and they need to make it look like there is some other reason for all of those surprising victories on election night.

Mark my words, the GOP will keep both houses of congress and the election eve story will be all about how, against all odds, their awesome GOTV operation snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

Why did the GOP vote exceed pre-polling and exit polling stats in almost every swing state in 2004? Rove hypes the GOP GOTV in order to cover for his voting machine fraud. Dems better be working to win by at least 7% everywhere to cover the spread created by mechanical ballot manipulation. My prediction is that 15-20 races currently polling Dem will inexplicably go GOP because of higher turn-out than anyone predicted, with strange clusters of votes in certain geographic areas. Rove's "genius" is that he's got his thumb on the scales in a significant number of close races. The rest is hot air.

Isn't Ruy the guy who was greatly embarassed in 04 after stating that polling showed Kerry was in control and things were clearly breaking Kerry's way at the end of the campaign?

What Mr. Teixeira completely ignores is the Diebold factor.

If you have millions of voting machines all over the country, whose source codes are very hackable, and whose vote count cannot be verified by paper ballots, you have an ideal situation for the GOP to steal this election just like they did in 2000 and 2004.

Its simple, just have a hacker alter the software, and instruct that computer to count every 10th vote for the Democrat as a vote for the Republican instead.

Is it really any wonder that the exit polling told us that Gore had won Florida and Kerry had won Ohio? Not when you think about it a bit.

"As important as turnout and GOTV efforts can be, the GOP needs to find something more to hold back this wave."

And of course, they are - but its not GOTV - its an operation best subscribed as STD (pun intended!) - Suppress the Democrats:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110103202_pf.html