Kos, the idiom is not "grain of sand" but "grain of salt." Take these numbers with a giant grain of salt:
:-)
Posted by DeLong at November 2, 2004 11:18 AM | TrackBackDaily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.: Exit polls:
Tue Nov 2nd, 2004 at 18:03:32 GMT
Jerome gets the big scoop on the 2 p.m. VNS numbers:
AZ CO LA MI WI PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 51 52 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 48 48 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41
In 2000, the early numbers favored Bush. In 2002, exit polling was terribly innacurate. Exit polling also doesn't account for absentee and early ballots. And it's still early in the day. PA and MN will be much closer than these number indicate.
So please, please take with a giant grain of sand.
Should we be concerned about the fact that Michigan apeears twice on the list with different Bush tallies?
Posted by: Charles Kinbote at November 2, 2004 11:40 AMSo does Wisconsin.
I'm waiting for Slate's imminent early publication of the exit polls.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at November 2, 2004 11:47 AMTake that, you grain of sand! I take you with a grain of salt! You 90 pound weakling! I kick salt in your eyes! I draw lines in the salt!
Posted by: Carol at November 2, 2004 11:53 AMThe early duplicates seem to be gone; I think they were probably the results from early exit polls that somebody didn't erase yet.
But if you want to see something REALLY weird, check out Zogby's site right now:
http://www.zogby.com/
His final state polls have the EC race knotted at 252 apiece, with both Pennsylvania AND VIRGINIA tied. Also, Kerry ahead in Colorado, but losing in both Ohio and Florida.
But it gets weirder, since he's got a scrolling banner (ugh) saying that the surprises will be in Colorado (check), Florida (check, if he means Bush is not going to win there, pace his last poll), Pennsylvania (a state that gets away from Kerry?) and Virginia herself. Virginia is not a substitute for losing Ohio or Pennsylvania in the EC, by the way, but a tighter than expected race there could mean that Bush is actually in worse trouble than the pundits and pollsters have suggested.
Zogby's statewide polls in all previous elections have been infamously unreliable -- in 1998 he called Sen. D'Amato the winner by 0.5% (he lost by 10) and Sen. Moseley-Braun the winner by 3% (she lost by 4). As yet, the few mutterings we're hearing about preliminary exit poll results are inconclusive -- for instance, the commentors over at NRO's "Corner" are clashing over what they're hearing.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at November 2, 2004 12:07 PMTradeSports markets down on Bush. Were at 55% bush earlier today, now down to 50.2%, trending lower.
Posted by: Jake Walker at November 2, 2004 12:17 PMBrad, I think you miss the subtlety in Kos's "giant grain of sand." The key is the word "giant," which isn't part of the Pliny quote. Remember, sand is the source of glass, and so glass may be regarded as a "giant grain of sand." So Kos is, in fact, telling us these results are a lens or a window; some type of aid in viewing an otherwise-obscured reality.
Well, that, or he likes gritty food.
Where's Sullivan?
Posted by: kharris at November 2, 2004 12:26 PMU.S. stock market fell off the table circa 3:40 EDT--can't find any other news that could have moved the market so sharply.
Rumor of oil pipeline blast in Iraq is unconfirmed (I mean it is even unconfirmed that it is a rumor); it -could- be a big program trade. More likely, Mr. Market is getting accustomed to the idea of more regulation, less corporate tax evasion, and lower profit margins near-term. GOTV.
NM
Posted by: Nicholas Mycroft at November 2, 2004 12:27 PMBrad, I think you're missing the subtlety in Kos's "giant grain of sand" comment. The "giant" part wasn't part of the original Pliny, so it's the clue. Remember, glass come from sand, and so a piece of glass could be considered a giant grain of sand. It appears Kos is telling us these results represent a lens or a window; some means of seeing what would otherwise be obscured.
That, or he likes gritty food.
Bruce Moomaw writes:
>
> Zogby's statewide polls in all previous elections have been
> infamously unreliable -- in 1998 he called Sen. D'Amato the
> winner by 0.5% (he lost by 10) and Sen. Moseley-Braun the
> winner by 3% (she lost by 4).
State-wide polling is trickier, and you're right that Zogby's 1998 performance was...lousy. I believe his bad D'Amato call was shared by others, though. I'm guessing that the "scrolling banner" stuff on his site is now based on exit polling he's doing for somebody, and while exit polls have their own quirks, it would not be good for Bush if he had any chance whatsoever of losing Virginia. My expectations were that Kerry would either have to win by more than 47 votes in the EC (e.g. Ohio plus Florida) or win the EC by a smaller margin but winthe popular vote by more than a million votes to be completely "safe" from legal shennanigans. In other words, I don't think it would be politically possible to ask for re-counts or adjustments in any more than the two largest states you lost, or to put up a major battle to turn states around if you lost by some psychologically significant number of votes (1 million would do). I think Gore's big problem is that the extent of his popular vote win was not immediately appreciated given how long it took to count early and absentee votes in some places. After election night, he was up by fewer than 100K, but within 10 days, he was pushing on 500K. IF Kerry wins the popular vote by more than a million out of the chute, I'm not sure Bush's team would have the ability to run a big legal strategy to reverse or throw out results in states unless they were breathtakingly close.
Posted by: Jonathan King at November 2, 2004 12:31 PMBruce Moomaw writes:
>
> Zogby's statewide polls in all previous elections have been
> infamously unreliable -- in 1998 he called Sen. D'Amato the
> winner by 0.5% (he lost by 10) and Sen. Moseley-Braun the
> winner by 3% (she lost by 4).
State-wide polling is trickier, and you're right that Zogby's 1998 performance was...lousy. I believe his bad D'Amato call was shared by others, though. I'm guessing that the "scrolling banner" stuff on his site is now based on exit polling he's doing for somebody, and while exit polls have their own quirks, it would not be good for Bush if he had any chance whatsoever of losing Virginia. My expectations were that Kerry would either have to win by more than 47 votes in the EC (e.g. Ohio plus Florida) or win the EC by a smaller margin but winthe popular vote by more than a million votes to be completely "safe" from legal shennanigans. In other words, I don't think it would be politically possible to ask for re-counts or adjustments in any more than the two largest states you lost, or to put up a major battle to turn states around if you lost by some psychologically significant number of votes (1 million would do). I think Gore's big problem is that the extent of his popular vote win was not immediately appreciated given how long it took to count early and absentee votes in some places. After election night, he was up by fewer than 100K, but within 10 days, he was pushing on 500K. IF Kerry wins the popular vote by more than a million out of the chute, I'm not sure Bush's team would have the ability to run a big legal strategy to reverse or throw out results in states unless they were breathtakingly close.
Posted by: Jonathan King at November 2, 2004 12:32 PMBruce Moomaw writes:
>
> Zogby's statewide polls in all previous elections have been
> infamously unreliable -- in 1998 he called Sen. D'Amato the
> winner by 0.5% (he lost by 10) and Sen. Moseley-Braun the
> winner by 3% (she lost by 4).
State-wide polling is trickier, and you're right that Zogby's 1998 performance was...lousy. I believe his bad D'Amato call was shared by others, though. I'm guessing that the "scrolling banner" stuff on his site is now based on exit polling he's doing for somebody, and while exit polls have their own quirks, it would not be good for Bush if he had any chance whatsoever of losing Virginia. My expectations were that Kerry would either have to win by more than 47 votes in the EC (e.g. Ohio plus Florida) or win the EC by a smaller margin but winthe popular vote by more than a million votes to be completely "safe" from legal shennanigans. In other words, I don't think it would be politically possible to ask for re-counts or adjustments in any more than the two largest states you lost, or to put up a major battle to turn states around if you lost by some psychologically significant number of votes (1 million would do). I think Gore's big problem is that the extent of his popular vote win was not immediately appreciated given how long it took to count early and absentee votes in some places. After election night, he was up by fewer than 100K, but within 10 days, he was pushing on 500K. IF Kerry wins the popular vote by more than a million out of the chute, I'm not sure Bush's team would have the ability to run a big legal strategy to reverse or throw out results in states unless they were breathtakingly close.
Posted by: Jonathan King at November 2, 2004 12:33 PMAustralia's ABC Radio just reported that European bookmakers are receiving floods of money for Bush. I've been on enough racetracks to know you can't win backing favourites and I hope my rule applies here.
Posted by: Steve at November 2, 2004 12:57 PMBrad,
Kos is making a pearl. A cultured pearl would, of course, require a chip of mother-of-pearl. A natural pearl, on the other hand, requires a grain of sand. Unlike 4 years ago, this result will be a pearl. Unlike 4 years ago, this result will be natural, too.
Posted by: kharris at November 2, 2004 01:25 PMI've heard that Kos wasn't born speaking English. He is probably an ignorant Frenchman.
Posted by: MonkeyBoy at November 2, 2004 01:30 PMMonkeyBoy: were you born speaking English? How unique! I suppose your mother spoke to you in utero.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Posted by: Carol at November 2, 2004 02:06 PM