"Mano a mano" in Washington State

Some information about hand recounts in Washington State for the Governor's race that never seems to end.

Because the Republican majority is 42, if I've understood the regulations correctly, there are basically three options.

1) There is a recount by hand of the entire state, on the basis that the majority is less than 150 votes or 0.25 per cent.

2) The Democrat candidate concedes.

3) The two leading candidates have the option of agreeing a different method (for example selected counties only). If a recount in some counties leads to the result being overturned (i.e. the Democrat candidate takes the lead), then the whole state has to be recounted by hand.

At present the Washington Secretary of State's office (responsible for certifying election returns) believes that a definite result can be announced on December 2.

Another brief aside: Ukraine

I don't have any special knowledge about Ukraine, except to speculate that the cleavage between Yushenko and Yanukovych strongholds looks very much like the Western parts that were once part of Poland are voting for the opposition and the Eastern parts that were under Tsarist rule for longer are more pro-Moscow.

However, from Instapundit I found this link to some election statistics, including turnout changes between the two rounds of voting. This is apparently one of the pieces of evidence supporting claims of ballot-rigging.

The turnout rose sometimes considerably on November 21, in regions where Viktor Yanukovych the pro-Moscow candidate gained massive support. In areas supporting the opposition candidate Viktor Yushenko, turnout practically stayed unchanged from the first round of voting on October 31.

A brief aside: Palestinian Authority elections

The Palestinian Authority election for a new President to replace Yasser Arafat is due to take place on January 9 2005. Marwan Barghouti, described as a leader of the younger Fatah activists has announced his intention to challenge Mahmoud Abbas.

I am unfamiliar with the technical side of these elections so I have been doing some background reading.

For information from official Palestinian sources about the election process follow this link:

Various reports from:
Msnbc, Washington Times, Al Jazeera, and the Jerusalem Post.

For critical views about the likelyhood of elections taking place on schedule and fairly, as well as difficulties registering voters:
Newsday
Little Green Footballs
Global Security
The Australian

It might all be over by Christmas

More on the Washington recount, including what could happen next here.

"...forty two..."

The results are in for the first recount in Washington state. Dino Rossi has seen his lead cut to just 42 votes after King County supplied 593 extra votes to his Democratic opponent.

The Democrats may request a hand count, which would probably take a couple of weeks. Because the result is supposed to be certified by today, this may require lawyers and a lot of money. Over at the Daily KOS, there seems to be something of a consensus that the problem was their candidate, Christine Gregoire.

The changes in the three counties not reporting back by yesterday were:

King: Dem +593, Rep +348, Lib +30
Kitsap: Dem +15, Rep -19, Lib -7
Whitman: Dem -9, Rep -4, Lib -1
Total for the three counties: Democrat gain 599, Republican gain 325, Libertarian gain 22 (Republican majority in the 35 other counties was 316 votes).

Waiting for King

With three counties yet to declare recount totals, Dino Rossi the Republican candidate for Governor in the state of Washington has seen his lead increase from 261 to 316. However King County accounted for over half a million Democrat votes in the first count, so it's too early for the GOP to start celebrating. It would take an abnormally high number of extra votes in King County to be attributed to Christine Gregoire, the Democrat candidate, for the result to be overturned at this stage. Assuming no abnormal behaviour in King County, there should be no more than 700 extra votes allocated. The Democrats would need about 80% of these votes to win. This would be extraordinary: in no other county where more than 20 votes have been added, have the extra votes broken down more than 3 to 1 in either main candidate's favour.

The table below shows the latest available update on the recount.

County	Change from first count
Adams	Dem +12	Rep +27	Lib +2
Asotin	Dem +1	Rep -1	Lib n/c
Benton	Dem +1	Rep +2	Lib -1
Chelan	Dem +3	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Clallam	Dem +1	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Clark	Dem +3	Rep +7	Lib n/c
Columbia	Dem -1	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Cowlitz	Dem -29	Rep -40	Lib n/c
Douglas	Dem +2	Rep +4	Lib +1
Ferry	Dem +3	Rep +2	Lib n/c
Franklin	Dem -1	Rep +1	Lib +1
Garfield	Dem +1	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Grant	Dem +26	Rep +44	Lib +1
Grays Harbor	Dem +6	Rep +5	Lib n/c
Island	Dem n/c	Rep +5	Lib n/c
Jefferson	Dem +1	Rep -4	Lib +1
King
Kitsap
Kittitas	Dem +19	Rep +25	Lib +2
Klickitat	Dem n/c	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Lewis	Dem +2	Rep +4	Lib n/c
Mason	Dem +1	Rep +2	Lib +1
Okanogan	Dem +1	Rep -1	Lib n/c
Pacific	Dem +1	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Pend Oreille	Dem +6	Rep +2	Lib n/c
Pierce	Dem +242	Rep +261	Lib +11
San Juan	Dem n/c	Rep -1	Lib +1
Skagit	Dem +71	Rep +89	Lib +7
Skamania	Dem n/c	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Snohomish	Dem +131	Rep +130	Lib +10
Spokane	Dem +121	Rep +134	Lib +6
Stevens	Dem n/c	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Thurston	Dem +2	Rep +4	Lib n/c
Wahkiakum	Dem n/c	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Walla Walla	Dem +59	Rep +37	Lib +5
Whatcom	Dem +3	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Whitman
Yakima	Dem n/c	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Total	Democrat +690	Republican +745	Libertarian +48

Updates available on this page.

E&OE (2)

Yesterday's posting had a poor piece of layout: about 30 lines of blank text. The problem is now fixed and I now know how to avoid this in future.

Still Sleepless in Seattle...

With just over a quarter of the votes recounted, the Washington State recount for the gubernatorial election is showing the Republican lead as effectively increasing by 29 votes. If the other counties show the same broad levels of discrepencies from the original count but we assume they all go the Democrats' way, we cannot expect the Republican lead to be cut by more than between 150 and 200 votes in the remaining counties. Anything more would involve a major surprise.

With a 261 vote provisional lead to overturn, the intial result looks set to stand. A Republican win would give that Party 29 Governors to the Democrats' 21, a net gain of one for the GOP.

The table below shows the latest available update on the recount.

County	Change from first count
Adams	Dem +12	Rep +27	Lib +2
Asotin
Benton	Dem +1	Rep +2	Lib -1
Chelan	Dem +3	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Clallam	Dem +1	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Clark	Dem +3	Rep +7	Lib n/c
Columbia	Dem -1	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Cowlitz
Douglas	Dem +2	Rep +4	Lib +1
Ferry	Dem +3	Rep +2	Lib n/c
Franklin
Garfield	Dem +1	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Grant
Grays Harbour
Island	Dem n/c	Rep +5	Lib n/c
Jefferson	Dem +1	Rep -4	Lib +1
King
Kitsap
Kittitas	Dem +19	Rep +25	Lib +2
Klickitat	Dem n/c	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Lewis	Dem +2	Rep +4	Lib n/c
Mason	Dem +1	Rep +2	Lib +1
Okanogan	Dem +1	Rep -1	Lib n/c
Pacific	Dem +1	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Pend Oreille	Dem +6	Rep +2	Lib n/c
Pierce
San Juan	Dem n/c	Rep -1	Lib +1
Skagit
Skamania
Snohomish
Spokane
Stevens	Dem n/c	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Thurston	Dem +2	Rep +4	Lib n/c
Wahkiakum	Dem n/c	Rep +1	Lib n/c
Walla Walla
Whatcom
Whitman
Yakima	Dem n/c	Rep n/c	Lib n/c
Total	Democrat +60	Republican +89	Libertarian +7

[figures calculated by me based on these sources: original score and recount]

Errors and omissions excepted (part 1)

From time to time I take a time-out to check this blog for errors and omissions.

1) I have tidied up the spelling and the odd typographical error.
2) I have corrected a misunderstanding: I was under the impression that in 1916, Woodrow Wilson had failed to win the State of Missouri in his re-election campaign. This would have made him the only Democrat to ever win a presidential election against the Republican Party without holding Missouri.
3) I have deleted one posting (dated July 23 2004) in which I corrected another commentator (wrongly) for their mistake in reporting Missouri.

If any reader spots errors, omissions etc please let me know.

Recount in Washington State

The painful process of recounting over 2.8 million votes for the Governorship of the State of Washington begins.

In Klickitat, the only county to report back so far, Republican Dino Rossi has increased his vote by one, the other two candidates' scores remain unchanged.

The orginal total was:
Dino Rossi (Republican): 1,371,414 (48.8759%)
Christine Gregoire (Democrat): 1,371,153 (48.8666%)
Ruth Bennett (Libertarian): 63,346 (2.2576%)
Total votes: 2,805,913
Republican majority: 261 (0.0093%)

For British readers a 0.0093% majority would be equivalent to a parliamentary majority of about 4 votes.

Why Governors matter

Historically, being a Governor is a better springboard for presidential ambitions than either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Four of the last five US presidents, including George W Bush, previously held a gubernatorial office. From this perspective, the Democrats' outlook is gloomy: the four states with the largest number of electoral college votes all currently have Republican governors: California, Florida, New York and Texas.

In 2005, only two governorships are up for election, New Jersey and Virginia. Both are Democrat and neither can be considered very safe.

In New Jersey, the outgoing Governor Jim McGreevey resigned effective from midnight on November 16 2004. By doing so he avoided the need for a special election to find a successor. Given that Governor McGreevey resigned amidst allegations of a gay affair, and somewhat more lurid rumours, this was probably a wise precaution as far as the local Democratic Party was concerned. The acting Governor is New Jersey State Senate President Richard J Codey. In gubernatorial elections New Jersey is considered competitive between the two main parties, Mr McGreevey replaced Republican Donald DiFrancesco in 2001. New Jersey has 15 electoral college votes for the presidency.

In Virginia (13 electoral college votes), the Governor can only serve one four-year term of office. In recent years both Senators and the presidential race have produced Republican wins. The Governor's chair changed hands in the last election (2001). With the trend in the South away from the Democrats, Virginia must be considered a difficult hold, unless a strong candidate can be found.

The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates had previously held office as the governors of Southern states: Bill Clinton (1992 and 1996) in Arkansas and Jimmy Carter (1976) in Georgia.

If I were the Republican Party's election strategist, my worst fear would be another Clinton: a young, photogenic, amiable, Southern state governor.

Sleepless in Seattle

Seventeen days after polling has closed in the Northwestern state of Washington, we still don't know who the new Governor is going to be. A recount underway will determine whether Christine Gregoire, the outgoing State Attorney General (Democrat) or Dino Rossi, the Republican will take office in Olympia, replacing outgoing Democrat Gary Locke.

After counting more than 2.8 million votes, the provisional lead for Mr Rossi is 261 votes, or less than one tenthousandth of the turnout. The Libertarian Party candidate, Ruth Bennett has scored more than 63,000 votes, gaining 2.26 percent.

Details of the recount will be posted on this page.

Should the Republican win, it would be the first time a GOP candidate has held the governorship in Washington since 1980. It would also give a net gain to the Republicans in terms of governors nationwide. The present balance is 28 Republican and 21 Democrat, with Washington outstanding.

Pretty good forecasting

Looking back at my forecasting in July I find that my score was pretty good:

At this tentative stage, I put the presidency as marginally Bush, the Senate a Republican hold with an increased majority, the House of Representatives open but marginally Republican, and the Democrats to make no net gains in the governor stakes.

My electoral college analysis held up too. The six states that had every Presidential winner since 1972 had won came good for President Bush: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. The fact that the Democrat campaign was unable to focus on most of these states indicates the weakness of the Democratic Party in a purely demographic sense. It is strong mostly in parts of the USA that are stagnating. Unless the Republican Party loses its current drive to gain the support of Hispanic voters, which appears to be paying off, or does so at the expense of other demographic groups, the Democratic Party faces an uphill struggle to break out of its North East and Illinois stronghold. The inroads by Republican candidates in the West (Governor of California, possibly of Washington too) and the slide of Hawaii towards becoming competitive will not be halted by a repeat of the last two campaigns. Like the 1983 election in the United Kingdom, where the Labour Party was trounced, the margin between a close race and catastrophe can be a fine one. In 1983, the Labour Party gained one percentage point of the vote more than the Social Democratic Party and Liberal Party Alliance. It took two elections to return to some sort of electoral respectability.

For the Democrats this time, a lot of narrow wins in some states has masked the scale of defeat. With six states carrying 86 electoral colleges votes on majorities of 5 per cent or less the balance between a defeat that can be put down to Ohio and a landslide is a fine one.

In the Senate, the best win has to be that of David Vitter in Louisiana. According to Charlie Cook:

The two heroes for the Republican Party on election night were former Rep. John Thune, who unseated Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and Rep. David Vitter, who became the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a Senate seat in Louisiana. Both turned in extremely impressive performances as candidates and ran fabulous campaigns. Not to take away the other Republican victories, but there were some candidates who were more lucky than good.

On the eve of Election Day '04...

I have been conspicuously absent from this blog for too long.

At the eve of election day in the USA, it is worth looking at my initial observations and seeing how they stack up to three and a half months of campaigning.

On July 13, I wrote:

At this tentative stage, I put the presidency as marginally Bush, the Senate a Republican hold with an increased majority, the House of Representatives open but marginally Republican, and the Democrats to make no net gains in the governor stakes.

Given how close the election appears to be I am surprised to note that overall I consider that the Republican Party has improved its position since July.

The Presidential vote is going to hinge on which party has best organized a massive voter-registration campaign in the battleground states, although watch out for Colorado with the bizarre proposal to introduce proportional representation that if passed could give Bush 4 Electoral College votes (the proposition probably won't carry unless the Democrats have enough to support to win the state). It would be poetic justice if a blatant attempt to fix the electoral system by local Democrats caused the re-election of the Republican president.

Whoever wins, we can expect denunciations of fraud by the losers. From this side of the Atlantic the shambolic organization of electoral lists, of polling, and counting elections is astonishing. The behaviour of TV networks in declaring results (with errors, deliberate or otherwise) whilst voting is still going on is nothing less than a potential vehicle for fraud. Frankly, no ballots should be counted until all the polling stations have closed and all valid postal votes received. This means that postal ballots received after polling day have to be refused, and there is no doubt a constraint on those states that finish voting early to declare their results. That's just too bad. The alternative is a dirty mess that continue to feed accusations of bias and fraud.

Although the presidency will be determined by massive registration drives that may or may not involved ballot-rigging the picture in the other layers of American democracy is rather less murky.

As would be expected when one party has 19 Senate seats up for re-election, the Democrats have more to lose than to gain. Despite this, it seems likely that the Democrat candidates in Illinois and Alaska will be successful. Such joy in the Watergate building will be tempered by the loss of Georgia and real threats in both Carolinas, and Florida. As for Tom Daschle the Democrat leader in the Senate, he is staring at defeat in South Dakota against a strong Republican, former Congressman John R. Thune.

For neutral election watchers the biggest fun is to be had in Louisiana, a state where no Republican has ever won a Senate election. David Vitter has run an excellent campaign and is polling close to 50% against four Democrat candidates. Because of the particular election system in Louisiana, if Mr Vitter fails to secure an outright majority, he faces a run-off election against his closest Democrat rival. We could have not one but two nail-biters in Louisiana.

The main difference between my July analysis and tonight's is in the House of Representatives: because of boundary changes in Texas and an improvement in the national polls the Republicans look likely to gain Representatives rather than lose any.

So my gut tells me it's a toss-up between a re-run of 1996: Republicans hold both Houses of Congress by with a Democrat president, or the polls have done their usual job of missing the "silent majority" and its a 1988 Dukakis disaster for the Democrats. The Iowa Electronic Markets, reputed to be more accurate than opinion polls suggest that Bush will win over 51 per cent of the popular vote.

From a domestic policy point of view, a Democrat President with a Republican Congress would probably be about as acceptable to most Americans as any realistic available choice. I admit to being puzzled by polls that cite terrorism as the main problem, President Bush as by far the most publicly trusted candidate for dealing with it, but no clear leader in the race.

Sorry, but there's too much potential fraud and incompetence in Ohio and Florida to call this one right. In fact, I'm not sure I should trust any media call of any one of about 29 states until they have at least two thirds of the ballots physically counted.

The Maine equation

Probably the most complicated election of any state on November 2nd will be one of the first to call a result (assuming no glitches or disruption). The State of Maine, along with Nebraska, does not have the "winner takes all" system used in the other states. Instead of this, Maine is divided into two electoral districts.

The fun part is interpreting the election law that is not entirely clear.

In 2000 it was easy enough: the Democrats won a majority of votes in each district so they won the 2 district electoral college votes and the 2 "at large" ones. But if each district is won by a different party, then the issue of the 2 "at large" electoral college members becomes less clear. Some commentators imply that the 2 at large electoral college seats are shared in the event that each party wins a district. Others claim that the aggregate winner of the two districts gets the two bonus seats. The latter would mean that the Republicans could win a seat, without winning in Maine overall.

This split between district and statewide electoral college seats explains the decision by the Republicans to campaign hard in Maine: although a four seat total may not seem like much in relation to Florida's 27, the district setup means that the Democrats have to defend in depth, across the whole state. As electoral guerilla tactics go, this one is a peach.

Personally, I doubt that the Republicans will actually make any gains in Maine. But they will tie down campaign efforts that could have been used in New Hampshire by their opponents. Worth a try.

Battleground states: the US State Department view

The U.S. State Department has a web page showing the battleground states. The information is almost identical to the BBC's own information pages.

In a very bi-partisan mood, ten states are listed, five that voted for each Party in 2000. As a simplified guide goes it is not useless: on election night, checking out those states could be enough to tell who's winning. Yet the parties themselves are spending considerable sums of money campaigning in states not listed on these sites.

If I had to produce a list of 10 ten states to watch I would not have picked the ones the State Department has done. For starters I do not see how Minnesota is less of a target for Republicans than Pennsylvania. As for the Democrats, I am puzzled if they do not make a fight of it in Nevada and Tennessee. History suggests that the Democrats should be able to challenge in Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky and Louisiana.

Perhaps the most amusing omission is Maine. This Democrat state has been the target of Republican campaigning, but the electoral system in that state is so complicated, that I have sneaky feeling that neither the U.S. State Department, nor the BBC, cared to include Maine and have to fit the explanation in a small text box.

UPDATE: Someone must be reading this blog! The site now lists 17 battleground states, including Minnesota and Nevada. Tennessee, along with Arkansas and Louisiana have been abandoned by the Democrats for presidential election purposes, which speaks volumes for their election prospects.

The "Doomsday Scenario"

This is not exactly, as one might imagine, a situation where we have Florida2000-style recounts in a dozen states, some favouring one candidate, some favouring the other. Instead, in the light of the March 11 2004 bombings in Madrid, the spectre of terrorist attacks on the Republican Party convention or disrupting the November 2 election is giving headaches to election officials and security teams alike.

To give an idea just how extensive preparations are for the Party Conventions, see this article concerning the disruption to railway services in Boston and New York.

There is as yet no clear indication as to how each state will react if there is a major terrorist disruption to the election day or the counting of ballots. To a certain extent, discussing the issue in public is seen as giving terrorists more power. Intriguingly, there is the prospect that some State Governors could appoint the Electoral College representation for respective states. With Republican Governors in the four biggest states (California, Florida, New York and Texas), we can expect lawsuits to fly.

Can Bush Mk.II suffer a "Perot effect" (2)

Last Thursday, I wrote about the reasons why Democrats could choose to highlight the disagreements that exist between many conservative and libertarian voters with the record of George Bush Mk.II. There is an important point to consider as to why the fringe parties may not actually affect the result.

"In November 2000, the Green Party - represented by Ralph Nader - took sufficient votes in Florida to ensure that the Democrat Al Gore would lose." This view is held almost universally among the Democrat campaigners and is the reason why they have made every possible attempt to stop Nader from standing in 2004. To the extent that many libertarians feel more at home with fiscally-responsible Republicans, one could imagine a similar problem for George Bush Mk.II this year. After all, that is exactly what Ross Perot is credited with: punishing Bush Mk.I and letting Bill Clinton in with a spectacularly low share of the vote.

However, there are two reasons why such an extrapolation may be unfounded. In the first place, the Libertarian Party has contested every presidential election since 1972. During this time it has never polled much more than one percent in a presidential campaign, although much higher scores have been achieved in statewide contests. It is probably fair to say that the vast majority of Libertarian Party voters in 2000 also voted that way in 1996, and that those that were eligible to vote also did so in 1988 and 1992. If they did not vote for Reagan in 1988, they would not vote for Bush Mk.II in 2000 or 2004.

As for switching voters there is a calculation to be made. In an online questionnaire I was asked thirty questions and the "ideal candidate" for me was calculated. No one achieved 100%. One of the fringe candidates scored 67% for me, one of the two major party candidates scored 65%, the other major candidate scored 30% and most of the other fringe parties scored less. If the choice to right or left wing voters were between two major party candidates scoring let us say 40% of their approval and a fringe candidate scoring 80%, then I believe that we could expect people to vote for their principles ahead of voting tactically.

In a wide-open contest the temptation to vote for one's beliefs ahead of tactical concerns is also strong. But one thing most people agree on is that the 2004 election will be tight. Therefore the cost of voting for 'purity' is very high. Vote against Bush's public spending increases and you could get Kerry who spends more. Vote against Kerry's watered down liberalism and you could get Bush revoking abortion rights, outlawing gay marriage and continuing an aggressive militaristic policy.

Of course if large numbers of people act on the notion that the election could be tight, I would not be at all surprised to see a landslide.

Can Bush Mk.II suffer a "Perot effect"? (1)

Can George Bush Mk.II suffer a 'Perot effect'? Democrat campaign managers certainly seem to think it is worth playing for. Meanwhile Republicans are silent on the possibility of Libertarians doing to them in 2004 what Ross Perot did in 1992.

In 1992, Bill Clinton the Democratic challenger won the presidential vote in 32 states plus Washington D.C.. Among the states where he defeated the incumbent Republican George Bush Mk.I were Montana and Colorado. The reason for this sudden and almost unprecedented enthusiasm in those parts for a Democrat was not some deep seated change of heart by much of the population. Instead we need to look at what became known as the 'Perot effect'.

George Bush Mk.I's drubbing was at least due in some measure to the disaffection of much of the Republican right with the President's policies and leadership. The infamous "Read my lips, NO TAX INCREASES", the perceived softness on both economic and social issues culminated in the dissident campaign of a multi-millionaire Ross Perot. Perot was known for having a fortune developing security products for government contracts and having financed a mercenary attempt to rescue prisoners of war believed held in Vietnam.

This time the Democrats are circulating a catalogue of quotes that undermine conservative or libertarian support for the Republican incumbent.

The Libertarian Party scored less than half a percent in the 2000 Presidential election, despite appearing in one form or another on the ballot in all 50 states. However, that was before the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, large increases in public spending and a general disillusionment on the right about the effectiveness of George Bush Mk.II as their champion.

Even a 0.75% Libertarian vote in such states as Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico and Florida could make a difference. Any significant local burst of defection to Libertarians in places like New Hampshire could be fatal to the Republican cause.

In the circumstances it would be foolish for the Democrats to ignore any opportunities to exploit disaffection against Bush from the right. At best, loss of right-wing support will be enough to put a Democrat in the White House. At worst, Bush will have to respond by moving his campaign towards the right, providing opportunities for Democrats to attack with accusations of 'extremism' and 'pandering' to all sorts of liberal demons. In the latter case, John Kerry can shore up some of his defectors to the Green Party or to Ralph Nader.

Shades of 1992

Charlie Cook at the National Journal has gone as far to write off a Republican victory in the Presidential race this November as it is possible to go without making himself a hostage to fortune. It is hard to argue with his analysis of the polls. He predicted a modest "bounce" in the poll ratings for the Kerry camp following the announcement of Senator John Edwards as his running mate, and he was spot-on. Of course one reason for this may have been that most voters had "factored in" the Edwards nomination and were not seriously expecting anything else.

So whatever the reason, Charlie Cook has correctly anticipated the polling strengths of the Republican and Democrat candidates: roughly 45 per cent each, with no big changes (+/- 3%) either way. But this is where the mystery sets in. We have a very polarized electorate most of which has made up its mind how it is going to vote. So as Charlie Cook says, President George W. Bush cannot expect a major boost between now and polling day, although he has suggested that switching running-mates could help.

But the shades of 1992 I think of are not in the US, where George Bush Mk.I lost to the challenge of Governor Bill Clinton. It is in the April 1992 election in the UK, where the Labour opposition was steadfastly ahead in the polls right up to polling day.

Opinion polls are not votes, and unless they are very well targeted, to include proportions of the electorate that actually vote, they can go wrong in a tight race. Will the fashionable students who almost ritually hate Bush, hate him enough to drive for ten minutes to a polling station in November? Will the militant Christians who abstained last time over a drink-driving offence, boycott the Republicans again? Will the convicted felons who are allowed to vote this time in Florida actually vote, and vote Democrat?

Anyone who knows the answers to all these questions, ring your bookies right now!