flynn23 wrote:
] The difference is that the IEW is the most *accurate* of
] predictors in elections, boasting a track record virtually
] unblemished since the 1988 elections. Polls are flawed and
] skewed entirely by methodology. NPR just had an article about
] that on this week, but I cannot find the link. We can only
] HOPE that the bias inherent in the types of people who play
] the Iowa market is causing the gap.

[ Yeah, NPR is right. For example, Reuters polls signifigantly more republicans than democrats, by design, presumably because (R) turnout has been historically higher. Of course, their poll shows a wide bush lead. WSJ also had a piece which indicated that the high polarization tends to amplify methodological skew and also that turnout is likely to be higher than ever, which makes predictions of Likely vs. Registered voters all the more suspect.

Presumably the Iowa market shouldn't be subject to those same issues, but I have a feeling that the unique characteristics of this race are affecting it as well. The market is more of a confidence poll than a desire poll, and the left in this country isn't known for it's calm reception of bad news. The left flips out and gets demoralized much easier than the right, who get angry and go on the attack instead. There's something ideological in that -- we're already less cohesive, so bad news is like a doberman through a flock of birds. The right is so stubbornly resolute that not very much shakes their confidence, as evidenced by the continued support of an administration whose handling of every critical issue facing the nation has been a complete atrocity.

I think even that is starting to break down though. A number of prominent republican congressmen have lambasted the handling of the war in the past few days, one of them even using the "I" word (incompetent). I really do believe that while the polls and this CBS nonsense give the (R) base fuel, the undecideds in this country are more than likely going to break based on issues, like Iraq, the economy, jobs, health care, economics, etc. The fact that they're undecided means they're already giving more thought to the matter than the polarized base on either side, so we can hope that Big Dog was right and that when people think, dems win.

I also have reasonably high hopes that the debates will skew in our favor.

All that being said, if i'm wrong, Canada won't save you... the US is gonna take down everyone. -k]

RE: IEM 2004 US Presidential Election Winner Takes All Market Price Graph