... not because they make me doubt the legitimacy of the vote count, but because they drive home how exactly how Bush won.

Here are full exit poll results.  Go read them, they are very instructive and interesting.  Note: these results were calibrated to the actual vote count so the numbers should be of good quality.

"Most important issue" is what everyone is focusing on:

issue (how many said most imp.) Bush Kerry

Taxes (5%)         57%  43%
Education (4%)     26%  73%
Iraq (15%)         26%  73%
Terrorism (19%)    86%  14%
Economy/Jobs (20%) 18%  80%
Moral Values (22%) 80%  18%
Health Care (8%)   23%  77%


Fully 18% (80% of 22%) of the electorate voted for Bush because "moral values" are more important than ANYTHING ELSE (including terrorism).  More people chose "moral values" than any other issue as the most important.  That is just astonishing.

If you take the "moral values" people out, Bush loses the election by 14%.  Moral values, of course, is code for evangelical Christian, and in many cases no doubt is code for anti-gay-union.  All the other "most important issue" responses can map to any number of voting blocs, but "moral values" -- the most important issue to the most people -- maps to only one voting bloc.  

This is a major trend in the electorate and it cannot be ignored.  I'm not saying whether it should be combated, co-opted, reframed, or what, but it obviously cannot be ignored.

Here's one other piece of information that I found interesting, because it's something I looked at specifically the day before the election:

Presidential Vote in 2000
Did not vote (17%)  45%  54%
Gore (37%)          10%  90%
Bush (43%)          91%   9%
Nader (3%)          21%  71%


Kerry cleaned up among new voters, and more or less held his own among vote switchers.  Taken by itself, that sentence adds up to a Kerry win.  Except that 6% of Gore voters either now believe they voted for Bush in 2000, or did not come back to vote in 2004.  

Philadelphia: chance showers
Pittsburgh: chance showers

Cleveland: certain rain
Columbus: likely rain

Miami: showers possible

Madison: chance showers

I found this NYT story on voters who are switching sides from 2000 to be very interesting.

Some facts and thoughts, some from the article and some from my jelly-like brain:

• The actual result in 2000 was 48.5/48 Gore.
  
• From the NYT poll, 11% of Bush 2000 voters are planning to vote Kerry, 7% of Gore 2000 voters are planning to vote Bush. This projects 2000's 48.5/48 Gore to 2004's 50.5/46 Kerry.  
  
• Let's grant the halo effect provisionally since it mitigates against this Kerry advantage. Let's say that a current poll of 2000 voters would show 50/46 Bush over Gore (because people don't like to admit having voted for the loser). Then the information about voters switching sides would project 2000's 50/46 Bush to 2004's 48.5/47.5 Kerry.
  
• Every poll in the universe shows that newly registered voters lean Kerry.  For example today's Zogby says new voters are 48-41 Kerry.
  
• The one recent poll I know of that breaks out occasional voters, voters who were eligible in 2000 but declined to vote, showed them breaking for Kerry almost exclusively, as in 100-0.  

So Kerry has a slight lead among 2000 voters, a moderate lead among new voters, and an overwhelming lead among occasional voters.  

Every voter falls in one of those three categories.  You can't put this together in any way to find a narrative to describe a Bush win.  

In fact, the only way to describe a Bush win that could hold together at all is that this polling data is wrong.

Read.

Woo hoo!

For the first time in its 80 year history, the editors of The New Yorker have made a presidential endorsement, for John Kerry. There is a long and detailed critique of the Bush administration, concluding that "its record has been one of failure, arrogance, and--strikingly for a team that prided itself on crisp professionalism--incompetence."

Turning to John Kerry, the editors write that "In every crucial area of concern to Americans (the economy, health care, the environment, Social Security, the judiciary, national security, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, the fight against terrorism), Kerry offers a clear, corrective alternative to Bush's curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery."

Here.

It's signed "The Editors" but I hear Hendrik Hertzberg's voice loud and clear.  I defer to no one in my endless admiration for him.

Here.

• Ipsos is always at the median whenever you look at a chart of how far various pollsters lie from the mean prediction.

• "Twenty-four percent say they have already voted or will cast ballots before Election Day. Those who voted early were just as likely to back Kerry as Bush."

• Bush approval 47, unchanged since just after the 1st debate.

• Wrong track 56.

• Bush over Kerry by 7 on "better handle war on terror" (down from 23).

• Kerry over Bush by 18 on "better at creating jobs."
  

<img src="/files/user/343/BK1day.gif">

Buh-bye George.