I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that Peter Hartcher is the savviest Australian journalist around when it comes to interpreting polling evidence. In a piece in today’s SMH, Hartcher takes on the "Bush won 2004 on moral issues" thesis, and points out that:
the people who voted according to "moral issues" made up about the same share of the vote four years ago, and voted in about the same 4:1 ratio in favour of Bush four years ago, too. In other words, the role of the moral values vote was a constant. It did not explain Bush’s ability to move a decisive bloc of voters into the Republican column.
Hartcher’s conclusion is that Bush won ’04 on terrorism, which if true would certainly vindicate the Kerry strategy (roundly criticised by Dick Morris yesterday).
Current Tradesports predictions for 2008:
Dem Candidate: Hillary 36%, Edwards 11% …(skip a few)… Gore 4%, Kerry 2%
Rep Candidate: McCain 24%, Guiliani 22% …. (skip a few)…. Powell 5%
Winner: Dems 52%, Reps 48%
Where should the Dems go now? (Slate discussion)
What the Washington Post’s managing ed thinks of exit polls