9/11 COMMISSION FINDS LINKS BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND IRAQ
And remember, it's not as if al Qaeda were some pseudo political party in Lebanon. It has one mission -- killing people. So any link was a criminal link. And one that Saddam was not going to trumpet in a press release.

Add this to the other main argument that Bush "misled" us to war - regarding Joe Wilson's truth challenged complaints about Iraq trying to buy uranium - and the 9/11 Commission has thoroughly debunked the Bush-Lied-People-Died crowd.

But they'll keep repeating their lies anyway. And otherwise intelligent people will continue to believe the lies. Cognitive dissonance fired by hate.

THE BOLDNESS OF THE PRESIDENT
Click for this must-read on the need for government to function. I hope both Republicans and Democrats will keep this in mind in the future.

BALLANTINE VERSUS EASLEY
Richard Vinroot dropped out and decided not to call for a runoff. That's a shocking thing to do in this day and age of fight to the death politics. Mr. Vinroot deserves high praise.

ANOTHER ELECTION SIMULATOR
Prof. Sam Wang of Princeton is also running a simulation and agrees with TruthIsAll that as of today, John Kerry has a very high probability of winning the election. He pegs the number at 98%. Wow, that is big, but he acknowledges that it is just a snapshot. I'll be interested to see his numbers on Monday, November 1.

But I have problems with some of his calculated probabilities, and his description doesn't make it clear (to me) of how he did it. The great thing about statistics, is if specified correctly, a model like this can help to eliminate the bias of the person analyzing the race. The bad thing is an incorrectly formed methodology that presents probabilities that are unreasonable to anyone actually following the race and studying the dynamics beyond the straight polling numbers.

For instance, Prof. Wang constructs probabilities for Kerry wins in PA (89%), AZ (0%), FL (98%), MN (100%), OH (26%), NH (96%). No matter how many simulations he runs, if these are unreasonable probabilities, then his results are unreasonable. While I think that a probability of Kerry winning PA of 89% is not unreasonable on its face, I do think that a probability of him winning Florida of 98% or of winning Arizona of 0% is prima facie unreasonable.

Here are my probabilities for a Kerry win for the above listed states (in my still being beta tested simulation). PA (67%), AZ (38%), FL (54%), MN (73%), OH (44%), NH (53%). Which looks more reasonable?

Thanks to commentor "BushNoMore" for pointing me to Prof. Wang's site.

SIMULATING THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
So, I have lots of data. I have means and margins of error. I have state by state numbers in the Composite analysis. So, I have enough to construct probabilities and run simulations of the presidential election.

Over on DU, I found a fantastic effort by DU member TruthIsAll. I have a few problems with his state by state probabilities because of several assumptions that provide the basis for his simulations. One assumption is that undecideds will break heavily for Kerry, 70-30. I previously discussed why that wasn't reasonable. I'd like to see him run his model assuming undecideds go 55-45 for Kerry. He also determines the likely Kerry Vote for 2004 by looking to current state polls and the vote for 2000, 1996 and 1992, picking up 3 Democrat popular vote wins, and he doesn't normalize each state to the national popular vote, which might give a different picture. He should also add in 1988 results, at least, to get two Republican victories and 2 Democratic victories. In fact, if you study the voting trends per state, using data from 1988 improves the accuracy of predictions of 2000.

Anyway, TruthIsAll sets the current probability of a Kerry victory at 97.4%, based on his assumptions. But a look at the constructed probabilities by state don't seem reasonable. Is it really an 83.5% likelihood that Kerry will win Arizona, where recent polling shows he's usually behind and Bush has recently been polled with double digit leads there? Sure, a recent poll showed Kerry up 1, but an 83.5% probability? TruthIsAll needs to audit his data applying a little reasoned analysis and not just number crunching.

I started working up a similuation based on my Composite Poll results. Currently, Bush has a probability of winning Arizona under my system of 62.5%. Which sounds much more reasonable to me.

As a tease, I'll tell you that my current analysis of 10,000 election simulations says that Kerry's probability of winning the election is 56.0%, with an average of 272 electoral votes and a maximum of 371 electoral votes. I'm still auditing the methodology to make sure the probabilities pass the smell test and hope to get all the data up in the next week.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: FORGET THE CHARGE, LET'S TALK TIMING
The Kerry Campaign and Terry McAuliffe aren't talking about the substantive issue of whether Sandy Berger may be a crook or what he might have been doing sneaking secret material out of the National Archives to his desk where he was putting together advice for the Kerry Campaign.

No, the're "questioning the timing". That's the real defense these days to any serious charge - especially a charge with real merit and important implications. Forget the charge, it's all about politics.

So, who stands to benefit the most from the timing of the leaks? It's not the Republicans. Better timing for them would have been next Friday, right after Kerry's acceptance speech at the DNC. When he would normally be getting loving prime time exposure from the national media as he and Edwards embarked on some wonderfully staged campaign events, he'd be forced to fire his foreign policy advisor and maybe answer a question or two about whether Berger had been using the documents for the campaign. Or whether any information that should be classified actually found it's way into a Kerry speech (I know that the type of info in this speech regarding border security is typically classified).

Another good time would have been right before the Republican convention. The "corporate" news media would be covering all of the orchestrated happiness of the pachyderms, and then cutting away to look at a juicy new Democrat scandal.

But the best time would have been on DWI Friday, right before the election. By this time, Berger's name would have been repeated in the press as a possible Secretary of State or Defense for a Kerry Administration, or, God forbid, Director of Central Intelligence. Then, boom, right before the election, it turns out that someone in whom Kerry might have put great trust had been using top secret terrorism documents as a cod piece.

Yep, that's when I'd have released it if I were the Republicans.

If I were a Democrat, I'd have gotten the story out right before the convention so that it would not interfere with the newly introduced and defined Nominee Kerry.

A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY
The United Nations (or rather, United Presidents, Prime Ministers and Unelected Despots and Tyrants of Nations) decided yesterday that what may be the most effective deterrant to terrorists bent on killing innocent civilians must be torn down. So goes a day in the life of a body that is an apologist for terrorists, continues its never-again-hypocrisy therapy over its inaction in Rwanda while ignoring genocide in the Sudan. Does this organization have any purpose other than graft and corruption?

I'd like to see them adopt a resolution suggested by the Simon Weisenthal Center, to call suicide bombings a crime against humanity. But don't hold your breath.

NORTH CAROLINA PRIMARY POLITICS
It looks like the runoff is set for next month in the Republican battle to take on failed governor Mike Easley. The runoff should be between Patrick Ballantine and Richard Vinroot. Cobey is toast. He's in third place and it appears that all of the votes in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill are in at this hour (with Cobey getting 38% in Wake Co. and Ballantine showing big strength with 33%). The two respresentatives of the new NC Republican party have defeated the old, represented by Cobey and Little. Don't know where Fern or Dan fit. Don't care.

Too bad the party has chosen protectionist Jim Snyder to run for Lt. Governor. Thomas Stith would have been a good bet against Beverly Purdue. But, in any case, Snyder will be sight better than her too, but it will take coattails from Bush, Burr and Ballantine to sweep him in.

Now, maybe a state that is a sure thing for Republican presidents and better than 50% in electing Republicann senators can finally get some state level candidates elected by looking forward.

(server errors preventing posting at the post time indicated below).

SLOPPY = CRIMINAL
There's nothing sloppy about walking out of a room with classified documents. In fact, you were anything but sloppy if you succeeded. The goverment takes the care of classified national security documents quite seriously, and it is doubtful they'd have allowed John Kerry's foreign policy advisor, Sandy Berger, to carry a brief case into the room so he could easily remove documents. Chances are, if he took them out of there, he consciously concealed them, although his people deny he stuffed them "in his socks". How bout his underwear?

And now we have to ask, what was in the Richard Clarke memo about the Clinton Administration's efforts to deal with terrorism that made it important enough to smuggle away. And where is it now? And why did he have to take his notes with him, which themselves become secret and are subject to handling under the same requirements as the classified documents from which they were taken? He must know that after serving as National Security advisor. I knew it with a very low security clearance.

And did John Kerry, Berger's current boss, know anything about it? I'm just asking. These are certainly fine things to consider on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

THIS LAND IS WHOSE LAND?
Here's the greatest web animation I have ever seen. And it's fair and balanced. Click here.

Thanks John for the link.

THE BOUNCE HITS THE ELECTORAL VOTE
Bush 47.5 - 246 | Kerry 49.8 - 292

Florida finally slips over into the Kerry column after weeks of hanging out with Bush despite the popular vote swing toward Kerry. But, as predicted last week, the Edwards bounce has arrived in the electoral college, where Kerry now leads 292-246.

You'll also notice a change in the above graphic. Despite the convenience (and now cliché) of referring to "Red States" and "Blue States", I've decided to adopt what I understand is the traditional color coding standard. The incumbent is blue and the challenger is red. That suits me, because I think red suits Kerry better.

But before we get to the numbers, and our eye catching new way of presenting them, let's talk about trends and forecasting. Thanks to the wonderful versatility of Excel and my own spreadsheet OCD, I've run some predictions based on the last 4 months of numbers. Since I've always said that I think this analysis works more for showing trends in the race and not for showing a specific daily snapshot or actual prediction of where things will be in November, I ran a least squares linear regression analysis to forecast the November 2 results. Basically, if the prevailing trends in the race over the last 4 months continue until election day, then this forecast will be accurate. Of course, that's an untrue assumption, isn't it. Dynamics will change. But I thought the results are interesting, especially as everything is swinging back toward Kerry.

So, the popular vote forecast for election day is Bush 46.8 | Kerry 48.7. Forecasting the electoral vote, state by state according to our weekly analysis, says Bush will win 278-260 - the same spread (adjusted for the census) that Bush beat Gore, but some of the states are different. But I'll tell you right now that if Bush loses the popular vote by almost 2 percent, he is not going to win the electoral vote.

Now, about the oft repeated notion that the undecides break for the challenger. In analyzing the weekly polls that this analysis uses (not including the Iowa electronic markets, which is not a poll), the Undecideds come in at an average of 6.85%. I use a convoluted method analyzing job approval and favorability ratings to determine how to allocate the undecided. Right now, they break down in favor of Kerry, who gets 56%-44%. But Dick Morris tells you they break much more heavily for the challenger. I'm not so sure.

I analyzed the numbers since 1976 reported by the National Council on Public Polls. Since that election, undecides have gone in favor of the challenger 55%-34%. Not too far off my number, but more favorable for the challenger. But the thing with statistics, you can find contradictory numbers.

Is challenger status the only thing that may effect how undecided voters break? Perhaps Democrats are generally more attractive to late deciders. So, I ran the numbers by political party. Generally, undecides break toward the Republican, 48-40. That's not a big advantage, but certainly different than the challanger/incumbent analysis. Why should one be more correct than the other?

Well, what about Republican Incuments versus Democrat challengers? Undecides break for the Democrat challenger 42%-31%. So, I took all those measures that are consistent with this race, Challenger vs. Incumbent, Republican vs. Democrat and Republican Incumbent vs. Democrat Challenger, and averaged them. The result, if this is actually predictive, is that undecides in this race will break for Kerry 55%-45%. Consistent with my convoluted job approval / favorability analysis that today allocates the undecided 56%-44%. Does all of this analysis mean that my numbers are the best predictions of the trends in this race? I leave it up to you to decide.

Now, some more numbers:

This Week's Polls
CBS/New York Times (Bush 42 | Kerry 45)
Investor's Business Daily (Bush 43 | Kerry 47)
Rasmussen Week Average (Bush 45.7 | Kerry 47.1)
Iowa Electronic Market (Bush 52.4 | Kerry 48.2)

Last Week's Polls
AP/Ipsos (Bush 49 | Kerry 45)
CNN/USAToday/Gallup (Bush 45 | Kerry 50)
Zogby (Bush 45 | Kerry 47)
Newsweek (Bush 44 | Kerry 47)
Rasmussen Week Average (Bush 45.7 | Kerry 47)
Iowa Electronic Vote Share Market (Bush 50.9 | 47.5)



Bush State Gains
None.

Kerry State Gains
Florida
Wisconsin

Toss Up States (Slight Lead of <2%)
Arkansas *NEW* (Bush)
Florida (Kerry)
New Hampshire (Bush)
Ohio (Bush)
West Virginia *NEW* (Kerry)
Wisconsin (Kerry)

For maps, graphs and a new more viewer friendly way of presenting the state by state data, see the Composite Poll page and the New Data Page.

HAX CLELAND
Here's defeated former Sen. Max Cleland:

(We were) flat-out lied to. By the president, by the vice president and by the secretary of defense.

Powell was set up, the Congress was set up, all on false premises to go to war in Iraq. Now, why did Bush go to war in Iraq? Because he concluded that his daddy was a failed president and one of the ways he failed is that he did not take out Saddam Hussein.

Maybe he still believes the discredited Joe "Mint Tea in Niger" Wilson, but it just goes to show that no matter how much honor you bring on yourself by losing limbs in war, you can still squander it by becoming nothing more than a deluded political hack.