So, I heard this referenced on NPR yesterday so I decided to look it up: Top 10 iPod Playlists for Obama and McCain.
Quick comment on McCain: even I'm smart enough to know you don't include the smart artist twice - especially ABBA - and you don't make the most recent song on your list a song from when your opponent was a teenager.
What prompted me to post this was that "Yes We Can" by will.i.am made Obama's playlist. I love that Obama has an ego, though some of my friends have disagreed with me that he does. If there was any doubt, I'll just say this: he admitted (while running for president) that one of his favorite "songs" is one that just consists of famous people singing stuff he said over clips of him saying it. If that's not egotistical ...
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
January 19, 2009
December 12, 2008
Cynical Politics?
OK, so it's possible I'm just being overly political here, but do you think it stands to reason that Barack Obama appointed Janet Napolitano to DHS as an olive branch to John McCain, as it removes a very large (and really the only) challenger to his Senate seat in 2010? Just a thought ...
November 19, 2008
McCain wins Missouri
(Update: Here's a newer story)
At least one website is saying that McCain's lead in Missouri is now larger than the number of remaining ballots.
The article was posted yesterday and listed McCain ahead by 4355 votes with 3159 remaining.
Currently, the MO SoS page lists McCain ahead by 3602 votes. By subtraction, there are 1458 ballots remaining, though it could be fewer if more ballots have been thrown out.
As much as I would love a recount, I would consider the chances of Obama requesting one to be near zero, even if he wouldn't have to pay for it (not sure if he would or not).
Side notes: Turnout is up 7% from 2.73M in 2004 to 2.93M in 2008. Bush won the Show-Me-State 53.3 to 46.1 in 2004, a margin of 7.20%. McCain has won the state by approximately 49.4 to 49.3, a margin of 0.12%.
At least one website is saying that McCain's lead in Missouri is now larger than the number of remaining ballots.
The article was posted yesterday and listed McCain ahead by 4355 votes with 3159 remaining.
Currently, the MO SoS page lists McCain ahead by 3602 votes. By subtraction, there are 1458 ballots remaining, though it could be fewer if more ballots have been thrown out.
As much as I would love a recount, I would consider the chances of Obama requesting one to be near zero, even if he wouldn't have to pay for it (not sure if he would or not).
Side notes: Turnout is up 7% from 2.73M in 2004 to 2.93M in 2008. Bush won the Show-Me-State 53.3 to 46.1 in 2004, a margin of 7.20%. McCain has won the state by approximately 49.4 to 49.3, a margin of 0.12%.
November 06, 2008
November 04, 2008
Election Projection, Final Version
(Basically, I updated the graphic with the new poll data and backed out on leaning Missouri to Obama)
Yesterday Karl Rove spoke at Washington University. I wanted to go but didn't. But as I remarked to my friend, "How appropriate it would be to go see Karl Rove speak at the end of his era, and the next day vote in the dawn of the next era."
It's not news, but Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States.
There will be more polls so I won't call this my last update, though I may not have time for another. Here's the analysis.
I maintain that Barack Obama's core of 311 EVs (Kerry+IA+NM+CO+VA+NV+OH) is safe, even though Ohio has tightened a bit recently. I'd have to say I can't count McCain's core as being any larger than 132 EVs. It is unlikely that he will lose any of ND, GA, AZ, or MT, but the numbers just aren't there to call those EVs safe for McCain.
The remaining (non-safe) states are:
Florida (27)
North Carolina (15)
Missouri (11)
Indiana (11)
North Dakota (3)
Georgia (15)
Arizona (10)
Montana (3)
Florida - I would love to call Florida for Obama. It's just a whisper away, but I just can't do it. Four days ago it would have been all but locked up, but there has also been tightening here. Rasmussen, one of the best pollsters, went from Obama 51 McCain 47 on 10/26 to McCain 50 Obama 49 on 11/2. That's just one poll, but to really look for trends it's best to watch how numbers move within a pollster. Strong Obama.
North Carolina - More than any other state, North Carolina's result will be determined by turnout. There's apparently some rain there today, which is apparently bad for Democrats. I show Obama with a significant but very slight lead. The latest poll in NC is from American Research Group, whom I don't trust too much. The four polls before that show McCain ahead, albeit by 1, 1, 1, and 3 pts. Weak Obama.
Missouri - The show-me state has become the ultimate swing state. As I'm sure you've heard before, Missouri is (I believe) 25 for the last 26 elections in going with the winner (went against Eisenhower's re-election in '56) but this year runs a little redder than the median, though when Obama surged a month ago, Missouri moved bluer faster than most states. That trend has settled down, and of the last 6 polls in the state, there are four ties, one Obama 1 pt lead, and one McCain 1 pt lead. There are few areas in the country as poor as St. Louis City in running an election (in 2004 they had to extend voting hours to 10:00 PM from 7:00 PM) and the results always come in late, so MO will be among the later states called. I just don't know what to do with this state. Due to the confusion in the city, voter purges might be possible, but on the other hand I expect turnout to be very high. My precinct is largely African-American, and we were literally lined up by the hundreds before the polls even opened. My gut tells me Missouri might stay red, but all my objective indicators give an ever-so-slight advantage to Obama.(Very) Weak Obama. Weak McCain.
Indiana - For all the talk of Indiana's historical red-ness, Bill Clinton only lost the state by 4 in '92 and 5.5 in '96. Popular Senator Evan Bayh was on the VP shortlist, and the state overperformed for Obama in the primaries. On the other hand, Obama's only led in 2 of the last 9 polls (in fairness, McCain only has in 4 but his leads have been larger) and the state never really shifted too far after the economic crisis. Since the state has been underpolled I tried turning down the sensitivity, but it still just shows a big swing state mess. I may very well come back to this one, but for now I'll say that the first indicator of the evening won't lead to a 6:30 concession speech.(Very) Weak McCain.
North Dakota - This state, part of the rural west, has suffered from a mighty dearth of polling. Indicators show it will be surprisingly close, but Obama withdrew from the state during the Palin bounce and he underperformed during the primaries. Weak McCain.
Georgia - Georgia, I feel, is just being a tease. The race there has tightened very dramatically, but McCain continues to average over 50% - a key threshold. While reports indicate that early voting turnout has been exceptionally high, Georgia would be an upset for the ages. Strong McCain.
Arizona - There are more undecideds in John McCain's home state than in Georgia, so McCain is not averaging 50% here even though his lead is about the same. But if you live in Arizona and haven't decided who you're voting for, I can't help but feel like that's not good for John McCain. Still, Obama's never led a poll here and underperformed during the primaries. Strong McCain.
Montana - This state has been a big tease for Dems all year. It also suffers from a dearth of polling; nonetheless, Obama's only lead in four months came from a university-comissioned poll, which are notoriously untrustworthy. Still, McCain isn't at 50% here either. One other issue is that Ron Paul has made the ballot in MT. Apparently I'm the only person in the country who thinks that this factor is likely to pull more votes from Obama than McCain, as Obama/Paul (now there's a ticket) shared the same young, energized voter demographics in the primaries (and their fundraising). As in North Dakota, Obama also pulled his resources here after the Palin bounce, which you may remember was particularly strong in the rural west. Strong McCain.
Final Analysis - I hate to call MO and IN one way or the other. The other states here could very easily be up for grabs, but also definitely have a lean. I'm really growing irritated by all these sites that use real statistics in their models, but then won't make any calls, or are very conservative. Who does it help to call 105 EVs "pure tossups" on the day of the election? Of course, I don't have much to risk if I'm wrong, but a four point lead on the basis of a weighted average of 30 polls in the last month is not a statistical tie.
Anyway, the way it's currently added up showsObama 364, McCain 174 Obama 353, McCain 185 with Obama 353 McCain 185 Obama 364, McCain 174 and Obama 375 McCain 163 being the second- and third-most likely scenarios.
I project the popular vote to be Obama 53.1% to McCain 45.9%. Obama has currently led 278 consecutive polls in my model dating back to September 15. He is up 371-32 in the signs test and 15.8-0.0 in the weighted signs test. The polling averages are Obama 50.9% McCain 43.9%, which projected forward give you the bold numbers above.
The best guesses I have for state-by-state vote projections are given in the following table. I'm sorry it's messier than ever. There are no fudge factors in the following projections (i.e., I can't look at one state and say "hey, that should be 0.6 pts higher") but there is still subjectivity in terms of how sensitive the model is to new information (currently I give a poll a half-life of 5 days, down from 30 in June).
Note: I called Indiana above for McCain even though the math predicts (an insignificantly small) Obama victory, so my 353-185 differs from the graphic's 364-174.
Also, if you'd like a copy of my spreadsheet with all the data, I'd be happy to email it to you.
Yesterday Karl Rove spoke at Washington University. I wanted to go but didn't. But as I remarked to my friend, "How appropriate it would be to go see Karl Rove speak at the end of his era, and the next day vote in the dawn of the next era."
It's not news, but Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States.
There will be more polls so I won't call this my last update, though I may not have time for another. Here's the analysis.
I maintain that Barack Obama's core of 311 EVs (Kerry+IA+NM+CO+VA+NV+OH) is safe, even though Ohio has tightened a bit recently. I'd have to say I can't count McCain's core as being any larger than 132 EVs. It is unlikely that he will lose any of ND, GA, AZ, or MT, but the numbers just aren't there to call those EVs safe for McCain.
The remaining (non-safe) states are:
Florida (27)
North Carolina (15)
Missouri (11)
Indiana (11)
North Dakota (3)
Georgia (15)
Arizona (10)
Montana (3)
Florida - I would love to call Florida for Obama. It's just a whisper away, but I just can't do it. Four days ago it would have been all but locked up, but there has also been tightening here. Rasmussen, one of the best pollsters, went from Obama 51 McCain 47 on 10/26 to McCain 50 Obama 49 on 11/2. That's just one poll, but to really look for trends it's best to watch how numbers move within a pollster. Strong Obama.
North Carolina - More than any other state, North Carolina's result will be determined by turnout. There's apparently some rain there today, which is apparently bad for Democrats. I show Obama with a significant but very slight lead. The latest poll in NC is from American Research Group, whom I don't trust too much. The four polls before that show McCain ahead, albeit by 1, 1, 1, and 3 pts. Weak Obama.
Missouri - The show-me state has become the ultimate swing state. As I'm sure you've heard before, Missouri is (I believe) 25 for the last 26 elections in going with the winner (went against Eisenhower's re-election in '56) but this year runs a little redder than the median, though when Obama surged a month ago, Missouri moved bluer faster than most states. That trend has settled down, and of the last 6 polls in the state, there are four ties, one Obama 1 pt lead, and one McCain 1 pt lead. There are few areas in the country as poor as St. Louis City in running an election (in 2004 they had to extend voting hours to 10:00 PM from 7:00 PM) and the results always come in late, so MO will be among the later states called. I just don't know what to do with this state. Due to the confusion in the city, voter purges might be possible, but on the other hand I expect turnout to be very high. My precinct is largely African-American, and we were literally lined up by the hundreds before the polls even opened. My gut tells me Missouri might stay red, but all my objective indicators give an ever-so-slight advantage to Obama.
Indiana - For all the talk of Indiana's historical red-ness, Bill Clinton only lost the state by 4 in '92 and 5.5 in '96. Popular Senator Evan Bayh was on the VP shortlist, and the state overperformed for Obama in the primaries. On the other hand, Obama's only led in 2 of the last 9 polls (in fairness, McCain only has in 4 but his leads have been larger) and the state never really shifted too far after the economic crisis. Since the state has been underpolled I tried turning down the sensitivity, but it still just shows a big swing state mess. I may very well come back to this one, but for now I'll say that the first indicator of the evening won't lead to a 6:30 concession speech.
North Dakota - This state, part of the rural west, has suffered from a mighty dearth of polling. Indicators show it will be surprisingly close, but Obama withdrew from the state during the Palin bounce and he underperformed during the primaries. Weak McCain.
Georgia - Georgia, I feel, is just being a tease. The race there has tightened very dramatically, but McCain continues to average over 50% - a key threshold. While reports indicate that early voting turnout has been exceptionally high, Georgia would be an upset for the ages. Strong McCain.
Arizona - There are more undecideds in John McCain's home state than in Georgia, so McCain is not averaging 50% here even though his lead is about the same. But if you live in Arizona and haven't decided who you're voting for, I can't help but feel like that's not good for John McCain. Still, Obama's never led a poll here and underperformed during the primaries. Strong McCain.
Montana - This state has been a big tease for Dems all year. It also suffers from a dearth of polling; nonetheless, Obama's only lead in four months came from a university-comissioned poll, which are notoriously untrustworthy. Still, McCain isn't at 50% here either. One other issue is that Ron Paul has made the ballot in MT. Apparently I'm the only person in the country who thinks that this factor is likely to pull more votes from Obama than McCain, as Obama/Paul (now there's a ticket) shared the same young, energized voter demographics in the primaries (and their fundraising). As in North Dakota, Obama also pulled his resources here after the Palin bounce, which you may remember was particularly strong in the rural west. Strong McCain.
Final Analysis - I hate to call MO and IN one way or the other. The other states here could very easily be up for grabs, but also definitely have a lean. I'm really growing irritated by all these sites that use real statistics in their models, but then won't make any calls, or are very conservative. Who does it help to call 105 EVs "pure tossups" on the day of the election? Of course, I don't have much to risk if I'm wrong, but a four point lead on the basis of a weighted average of 30 polls in the last month is not a statistical tie.
Anyway, the way it's currently added up shows
I project the popular vote to be Obama 53.1% to McCain 45.9%. Obama has currently led 278 consecutive polls in my model dating back to September 15. He is up 371-32 in the signs test and 15.8-0.0 in the weighted signs test. The polling averages are Obama 50.9% McCain 43.9%, which projected forward give you the bold numbers above.
The best guesses I have for state-by-state vote projections are given in the following table. I'm sorry it's messier than ever. There are no fudge factors in the following projections (i.e., I can't look at one state and say "hey, that should be 0.6 pts higher") but there is still subjectivity in terms of how sensitive the model is to new information (currently I give a poll a half-life of 5 days, down from 30 in June).
Note: I called Indiana above for McCain even though the math predicts (an insignificantly small) Obama victory, so my 353-185 differs from the graphic's 364-174.
Also, if you'd like a copy of my spreadsheet with all the data, I'd be happy to email it to you.
Election Projection, Beta Version
(The numbers here are subject to change as the day goes on)
Yesterday Karl Rove spoke at Washington University. I wanted to go but didn't. But as I remarked to my friend, "How appropriate it would be to go see Karl Rove speak at the end of his era, and the next day vote in the dawn of the next era."
It's not news, but Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States.
There will be more polls so I won't call this my last update, though I may not have time for another. Here's the analysis.
I maintain that Barack Obama's core of 311 EVs (Kerry+IA+NM+CO+VA+NV+OH) is safe, even though Ohio has tightened a bit recently. I'd have to say I can't count McCain's core as being any larger than 132 EVs. It is unlikely that he will lose any of ND, GA, AZ, or MT, but the numbers just aren't there to call those EVs safe for McCain.
The remaining (non-safe) states are:
Florida (27)
North Carolina (15)
Missouri (11)
Indiana (11)
North Dakota (3)
Georgia (15)
Arizona (10)
Montana (3)
Florida - I would love to call Florida for Obama. It's just a whisper away, but I just can't do it. Four days ago it would have been all but locked up, but there has also been tightening here. Rasmussen, one of the best pollsters, went from Obama 51 McCain 47 on 10/26 to McCain 50 Obama 49 on 11/2. That's just one poll, but to really look for trends it's best to watch how numbers move within a pollster. Strong Obama.
North Carolina - More than any other state, North Carolina's result will be determined by turnout. There's apparently some rain there today, which is apparently bad for Democrats. I show Obama with a significant but very slight lead. The latest poll in NC is from American Research Group, whom I don't trust too much. The four polls before that show McCain ahead, albeit by 1, 1, 1, and 3 pts. Weak Obama.
Missouri - The show-me state has become the ultimate swing state. As I'm sure you've heard before, Missouri is (I believe) 25 for the last 26 elections in going with the winner (went against Eisenhower's re-election in '56) but this year runs a little redder than the median, though when Obama surged a month ago, Missouri moved bluer faster than most states. That trend has settled down, and of the last 6 polls in the state, there are four ties, one Obama 1 pt lead, and one McCain 1 pt lead. There are few areas in the country as poor as St. Louis City in running an election (in 2004 they had to extend voting hours to 10:00 PM from 7:00 PM) and the results always come in late, so MO will be among the later states called. I just don't know what to do with this state. Due to the confusion in the city, voter purges might be possible, but on the other hand I expect turnout to be very high. My precinct is largely African-American, and we were literally lined up by the hundreds before the polls even opened. My gut tells me Missouri might stay red, but all my objective indicators give an ever-so-slight advantage to Obama. (Very) Weak Obama.
Indiana - For all the talk of Indiana's historical red-ness, Bill Clinton only lost the state by 4 in '92 and 5.5 in '96. Popular Senator Evan Bayh was on the VP shortlist, and the state overperformed for Obama in the primaries. On the other hand, Obama's only led in 2 of the last 9 polls (in fairness, McCain only has in 4 but his leads have been larger) and the state never really shifted too far after the economic crisis. Since the state has been underpolled I tried turning down the sensitivity, but it still just shows a big swing state mess. I may very well come back to this one, but for now I'll say that the first indicator of the evening won't lead to a 6:30 concession speech. (Very) Weak McCain.
North Dakota - This state, part of the rural west, has suffered from a mighty dearth of polling. Indicators show it will be surprisingly close, but Obama withdrew from the state during the Palin bounce and he underperformed during the primaries. Weak McCain.
Georgia - Georgia, I feel, is just being a tease. The race there has tightened very dramatically, but McCain continues to average over 50% - a key threshold. While reports indicate that early voting turnout has been exceptionally high, Georgia would be an upset for the ages. Strong McCain.
Arizona - There are more undecideds in John McCain's home state than in Georgia, so McCain is not averaging 50% here even though his lead is about the same. But if you live in Arizona and haven't decided who you're voting for, I can't help but feel like that's not good for John McCain. Still, Obama's never led a poll here and underperformed during the primaries. Strong McCain.
Montana - This state has been a big tease for Dems all year. It also suffers from a dearth of polling; nonetheless, Obama's only lead in four months came from a university-comissioned poll, which are notoriously untrustworthy. Still, McCain isn't at 50% here either. One other issue is that Ron Paul has made the ballot in MT. Apparently I'm the only person in the country who thinks that this factor is likely to pull more votes from Obama than McCain, as Obama/Paul (now there's a ticket) shared the same young, energized voter demographics in the primaries (and their fundraising). As in North Dakota, Obama also pulled his resources here after the Palin bounce, which you may remember was particularly strong in the rural west. Strong McCain.
Final Analysis - I hate to call MO and IN one way or the other. The other states here could very easily be up for grabs, but also definitely have a lean. I'm really growing irritated by all these sites that use real statistics in their models, but then won't make any calls, or are very conservative. Who does it help to call 105 EVs "pure tossups" on the day of the election? Of course, I don't have much to risk if I'm wrong, but a four point lead on the basis of a weighted average of 30 polls in the last month is not a statistical tie.
Anyway, the way it's currently added up shows Obama 364, McCain 174 with Obama 353 McCain 185 and Obama 375 McCain 163 being the second- and third-most likely scenarios.
I project the popular vote to be Obama 53.1% to McCain 45.9%. Obama has currently led 278 consecutive polls in my model dating back to September 15. He is up 371-32 in the signs test and 15.8-0.0 in the weighted signs test. The polling averages are Obama 50.9% McCain 43.9%, which projected forward give you the bold numbers above.
The best guesses I have for state-by-state vote projections are given in the following table. I'm sorry it's messier than ever. There are no fudge factors in the following projections (i.e., I can't look at one state and say "hey, that should be 0.6 pts higher") but there is still subjectivity in terms of how sensitive the model is to new information (currently I give a poll a half-life of 5 days, down from 30 in June).
Note: I called Indiana above for McCain even though the math predicts (an insignificantly small) Obama victory, so my 364-174 differs from the graphic's 375-163.
Also, if you'd like a copy of my spreadsheet with all the data, I'd be happy to email it to you.
Yesterday Karl Rove spoke at Washington University. I wanted to go but didn't. But as I remarked to my friend, "How appropriate it would be to go see Karl Rove speak at the end of his era, and the next day vote in the dawn of the next era."
It's not news, but Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States.
There will be more polls so I won't call this my last update, though I may not have time for another. Here's the analysis.
I maintain that Barack Obama's core of 311 EVs (Kerry+IA+NM+CO+VA+NV+OH) is safe, even though Ohio has tightened a bit recently. I'd have to say I can't count McCain's core as being any larger than 132 EVs. It is unlikely that he will lose any of ND, GA, AZ, or MT, but the numbers just aren't there to call those EVs safe for McCain.
The remaining (non-safe) states are:
Florida (27)
North Carolina (15)
Missouri (11)
Indiana (11)
North Dakota (3)
Georgia (15)
Arizona (10)
Montana (3)
Florida - I would love to call Florida for Obama. It's just a whisper away, but I just can't do it. Four days ago it would have been all but locked up, but there has also been tightening here. Rasmussen, one of the best pollsters, went from Obama 51 McCain 47 on 10/26 to McCain 50 Obama 49 on 11/2. That's just one poll, but to really look for trends it's best to watch how numbers move within a pollster. Strong Obama.
North Carolina - More than any other state, North Carolina's result will be determined by turnout. There's apparently some rain there today, which is apparently bad for Democrats. I show Obama with a significant but very slight lead. The latest poll in NC is from American Research Group, whom I don't trust too much. The four polls before that show McCain ahead, albeit by 1, 1, 1, and 3 pts. Weak Obama.
Missouri - The show-me state has become the ultimate swing state. As I'm sure you've heard before, Missouri is (I believe) 25 for the last 26 elections in going with the winner (went against Eisenhower's re-election in '56) but this year runs a little redder than the median, though when Obama surged a month ago, Missouri moved bluer faster than most states. That trend has settled down, and of the last 6 polls in the state, there are four ties, one Obama 1 pt lead, and one McCain 1 pt lead. There are few areas in the country as poor as St. Louis City in running an election (in 2004 they had to extend voting hours to 10:00 PM from 7:00 PM) and the results always come in late, so MO will be among the later states called. I just don't know what to do with this state. Due to the confusion in the city, voter purges might be possible, but on the other hand I expect turnout to be very high. My precinct is largely African-American, and we were literally lined up by the hundreds before the polls even opened. My gut tells me Missouri might stay red, but all my objective indicators give an ever-so-slight advantage to Obama. (Very) Weak Obama.
Indiana - For all the talk of Indiana's historical red-ness, Bill Clinton only lost the state by 4 in '92 and 5.5 in '96. Popular Senator Evan Bayh was on the VP shortlist, and the state overperformed for Obama in the primaries. On the other hand, Obama's only led in 2 of the last 9 polls (in fairness, McCain only has in 4 but his leads have been larger) and the state never really shifted too far after the economic crisis. Since the state has been underpolled I tried turning down the sensitivity, but it still just shows a big swing state mess. I may very well come back to this one, but for now I'll say that the first indicator of the evening won't lead to a 6:30 concession speech. (Very) Weak McCain.
North Dakota - This state, part of the rural west, has suffered from a mighty dearth of polling. Indicators show it will be surprisingly close, but Obama withdrew from the state during the Palin bounce and he underperformed during the primaries. Weak McCain.
Georgia - Georgia, I feel, is just being a tease. The race there has tightened very dramatically, but McCain continues to average over 50% - a key threshold. While reports indicate that early voting turnout has been exceptionally high, Georgia would be an upset for the ages. Strong McCain.
Arizona - There are more undecideds in John McCain's home state than in Georgia, so McCain is not averaging 50% here even though his lead is about the same. But if you live in Arizona and haven't decided who you're voting for, I can't help but feel like that's not good for John McCain. Still, Obama's never led a poll here and underperformed during the primaries. Strong McCain.
Montana - This state has been a big tease for Dems all year. It also suffers from a dearth of polling; nonetheless, Obama's only lead in four months came from a university-comissioned poll, which are notoriously untrustworthy. Still, McCain isn't at 50% here either. One other issue is that Ron Paul has made the ballot in MT. Apparently I'm the only person in the country who thinks that this factor is likely to pull more votes from Obama than McCain, as Obama/Paul (now there's a ticket) shared the same young, energized voter demographics in the primaries (and their fundraising). As in North Dakota, Obama also pulled his resources here after the Palin bounce, which you may remember was particularly strong in the rural west. Strong McCain.
Final Analysis - I hate to call MO and IN one way or the other. The other states here could very easily be up for grabs, but also definitely have a lean. I'm really growing irritated by all these sites that use real statistics in their models, but then won't make any calls, or are very conservative. Who does it help to call 105 EVs "pure tossups" on the day of the election? Of course, I don't have much to risk if I'm wrong, but a four point lead on the basis of a weighted average of 30 polls in the last month is not a statistical tie.
Anyway, the way it's currently added up shows Obama 364, McCain 174 with Obama 353 McCain 185 and Obama 375 McCain 163 being the second- and third-most likely scenarios.
I project the popular vote to be Obama 53.1% to McCain 45.9%. Obama has currently led 278 consecutive polls in my model dating back to September 15. He is up 371-32 in the signs test and 15.8-0.0 in the weighted signs test. The polling averages are Obama 50.9% McCain 43.9%, which projected forward give you the bold numbers above.
The best guesses I have for state-by-state vote projections are given in the following table. I'm sorry it's messier than ever. There are no fudge factors in the following projections (i.e., I can't look at one state and say "hey, that should be 0.6 pts higher") but there is still subjectivity in terms of how sensitive the model is to new information (currently I give a poll a half-life of 5 days, down from 30 in June).
Note: I called Indiana above for McCain even though the math predicts (an insignificantly small) Obama victory, so my 364-174 differs from the graphic's 375-163.
Also, if you'd like a copy of my spreadsheet with all the data, I'd be happy to email it to you.
November 03, 2008
WSJ candidate statements
Below are links to two articles that ran in the WSJ this morning, one written by each of the presidential candidates. We all know the basic problems with each of the stump speeches, and they are not all removed from these articles, but I still enjoyed reading them, as the last-minute nature of the pleas changes the tone in an interesting way.
John McCain - "What We're Fighting For"
Barack Obama - "The Change We Need"
John McCain - "What We're Fighting For"
Barack Obama - "The Change We Need"
November 02, 2008
Rick Davis is on Fox News Sunday
"I think you can probably move Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada into McCain's column."
"John McCain is the greatest closer poltician of all time."
"John McCain is the greatest closer poltician of all time."
October 31, 2008
Sorry to spam ...
... but if you still aren't convinced of victory, read this article "10 reasons McCain might win." When you see how hard this guy is trying, you will know there's no chance.
My favorite is #6, where he claims that McCain taking Pennsylvania and Ohio means he wins the election. You guys hopefully know better by now.
My favorite is #6, where he claims that McCain taking Pennsylvania and Ohio means he wins the election. You guys hopefully know better by now.
Is Arizona Close? (UPDATE)
Update: We have our first poll of the 2010 Senate race.
"If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today for whom would you vote for if the choices were between [current governor] Janet Napolitano the Democrat and John McCain the Republican?"
Janet Napolitano - 53
John McCain - 45
**************************************************************
Arizona has tightened rather dramatically in the last four or five days. On 10/24 I showed McCain up by 17.5 and ranked as the 45th bluest state. By 10/29 it had closed to 6.2 and reached #35. This didn't raise too many alarms, because pollsters have largely seen AZ as a waste of time this cycle, so either result could have been an outlier based on a lack of good polling data. But with over a half dozen polls in the last week, and the state now at McCain +4.3, what is going on? The media of course loves this story because it shows Obama's dominance reaching so far as to hit McCain's home state. So I just wanted to clear things up.
You can see there was no polling for a while (between 9/29 and 10/18). Then all of the sudden this one poll came up showing McCain only up 2, and the pollsters invaded.
Well, here's chill-pill time. Even if I drop all the pre-10/18 polls, McCain is still up 3.75. And as we've already seen today, it would be difficult for me to call that a swing state. Obama's never led a poll here, he slightly underperformed in the primary, and he has no ground game of any kind in the state. I'd still call this one Safe McCain, but I'll keep an eye out.
Update: Interestingly, SurveyUSA has not polled AZ since 02/28. Of all pollsters with more than 10 polls this year (and they've probably put out around 150) they are the best-rated pollster on 538, so if they say anything interesting in the next day or two, I'll definitely drop a line.
Here's a sloppy screenshot:
"If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today for whom would you vote for if the choices were between [current governor] Janet Napolitano the Democrat and John McCain the Republican?"
Janet Napolitano - 53
John McCain - 45
**************************************************************
Arizona has tightened rather dramatically in the last four or five days. On 10/24 I showed McCain up by 17.5 and ranked as the 45th bluest state. By 10/29 it had closed to 6.2 and reached #35. This didn't raise too many alarms, because pollsters have largely seen AZ as a waste of time this cycle, so either result could have been an outlier based on a lack of good polling data. But with over a half dozen polls in the last week, and the state now at McCain +4.3, what is going on? The media of course loves this story because it shows Obama's dominance reaching so far as to hit McCain's home state. So I just wanted to clear things up.
You can see there was no polling for a while (between 9/29 and 10/18). Then all of the sudden this one poll came up showing McCain only up 2, and the pollsters invaded.
Well, here's chill-pill time. Even if I drop all the pre-10/18 polls, McCain is still up 3.75. And as we've already seen today, it would be difficult for me to call that a swing state. Obama's never led a poll here, he slightly underperformed in the primary, and he has no ground game of any kind in the state. I'd still call this one Safe McCain, but I'll keep an eye out.
Update: Interestingly, SurveyUSA has not polled AZ since 02/28. Of all pollsters with more than 10 polls this year (and they've probably put out around 150) they are the best-rated pollster on 538, so if they say anything interesting in the next day or two, I'll definitely drop a line.
Here's a sloppy screenshot:
"Too Much Fear"
excerpts from Sophia Carroll's latest HuffPo piece...
Obama's speeches are vigorous and inspiring, but they lose significance when they are part of a bigger picture in which our democracy lacks serious debate. McCain's failure to make a serious case for his side has victimized the whole country because now, whoever wins this election won't have won because of ideas or vision, but because fewer people are worried about the threat he poses to our way of life.
Weight-loss strategy can be of use, here: to change an outcome, identify problem behavior. What is making us particularly vulnerable to fear today? Well, people on the left feel our democracy has been deliberately and systematically destabilized by the current president's consolidation of power to the executive branch, and we are all affected by his administration's insidious tendency to justify foreign policy in personal terms (implicitly the president's), rather than, say, the interests of the country as a whole. I'm not sure many would disagree that the president signifies far more today than he did eight years ago, and that this has been done deliberately. Scary.
Insisting that America show things like resolve and determination, for example, has re-located our national character away from where it belongs, with the people and into the person of the president. The truth is, wanting to show "strength" and "resolve" is no more relevant a justification for military action than the desire to show "happiness" would validate buying every Iraqi a balloon. If this bothers Americans even at a merely subconscious level, that's a good thing, because such personification evokes the exact system of government that our nation formed in order to reject: monarchy. If we're still uncomfortable with that, all is not lost.
But can a people remain democratic and self-reliant when its choices are dictated by fear? Democratic government's great advantage lies in its ability to express the will of the people, but can a people even have a 'will' under such conditions, other than to survive? [Katie-reaction: I'm not sure I 100% agree with this - I think most Americans-and many people for whom voting is a given - are still too rich to truly worry about "survival" - we're worried about keeping our stuff.] If so, it's barely appearing in the campaign coverage. We see voters on each side who are terrified that the opposition will destroy the country should he win, and other issues are all secondary, 'politics as usual.'
I am in the same boat, because I can't stop myself from fearing a McCain victory ... Both McCain and Palin seem unpredictable, undignified, and barely in control of any situation. These are not traits that characterize an America I want to live in, and much as I oppose our monarchic turn, this election does feel like a moment in time when our body politic is about to switch heads.
While Obama may be a good candidate for new 'head', we are a nation founded in pursuit of self-reliance, and as such, the position should not be available. Whoever wins, we must find a way to thrive under his administration without being ruled by it (I doubt Obama would disagree). It is precisely because democracies do not mistake the desires of their leaders for those of the people that we don't tend to start wars. America has begun blurring both lines, and we need to stop.
It is looking like the Democrats are going to do very well in this election, which may help: a bigger government would necessitate the spreading of power. But it will be at our nation's peril if the new, left-leaning leaders interpret their victory, as Bush did his narrow 2004 win, as a clear mandate to institute the kind of broad social changes that so many of us liberals would dearly love to see. They need to restore trust in our democracy first, and to do that they have to restore our trust in government itself by resisting the urge to treat legislation like a game of tetherball, forcing as much through as possible while they're in control.
If Obama and Biden win, after all, it will be because conservative Americans feel they cannot trust McCain with all that power, and not because they have had a sudden change of heart about the estate tax. While I may be writing this from a position of fear, I believe it: those conservatives are going to save this country by voting Obama, and they should not be thanked having their values ignored. To do so would be to ignore the national conversation that has been taking place over the past two years, and they deserve better.
We all deserve better, because all of America needs a government we can trust--not love, but trust, so that, for example, campaign promises to shrink and weaken the government seem as ludicrous as they would in any other job interview. Once we don't need to rely on the president to embody all that we stand for, we can focus on his job performance and evaluate him accordingly without getting swept away in persona.
Such scrutiny makes leaders better leaders, and it is why democracy works. I hope our leaders start working to earn back the public trust in the next few years, so that our next elections feel a little more democratic, and a lot less scary, to everyone.
Obama's speeches are vigorous and inspiring, but they lose significance when they are part of a bigger picture in which our democracy lacks serious debate. McCain's failure to make a serious case for his side has victimized the whole country because now, whoever wins this election won't have won because of ideas or vision, but because fewer people are worried about the threat he poses to our way of life.
Weight-loss strategy can be of use, here: to change an outcome, identify problem behavior. What is making us particularly vulnerable to fear today? Well, people on the left feel our democracy has been deliberately and systematically destabilized by the current president's consolidation of power to the executive branch, and we are all affected by his administration's insidious tendency to justify foreign policy in personal terms (implicitly the president's), rather than, say, the interests of the country as a whole. I'm not sure many would disagree that the president signifies far more today than he did eight years ago, and that this has been done deliberately. Scary.
Insisting that America show things like resolve and determination, for example, has re-located our national character away from where it belongs, with the people and into the person of the president. The truth is, wanting to show "strength" and "resolve" is no more relevant a justification for military action than the desire to show "happiness" would validate buying every Iraqi a balloon. If this bothers Americans even at a merely subconscious level, that's a good thing, because such personification evokes the exact system of government that our nation formed in order to reject: monarchy. If we're still uncomfortable with that, all is not lost.
But can a people remain democratic and self-reliant when its choices are dictated by fear? Democratic government's great advantage lies in its ability to express the will of the people, but can a people even have a 'will' under such conditions, other than to survive? [Katie-reaction: I'm not sure I 100% agree with this - I think most Americans-and many people for whom voting is a given - are still too rich to truly worry about "survival" - we're worried about keeping our stuff.] If so, it's barely appearing in the campaign coverage. We see voters on each side who are terrified that the opposition will destroy the country should he win, and other issues are all secondary, 'politics as usual.'
I am in the same boat, because I can't stop myself from fearing a McCain victory ... Both McCain and Palin seem unpredictable, undignified, and barely in control of any situation. These are not traits that characterize an America I want to live in, and much as I oppose our monarchic turn, this election does feel like a moment in time when our body politic is about to switch heads.
While Obama may be a good candidate for new 'head', we are a nation founded in pursuit of self-reliance, and as such, the position should not be available. Whoever wins, we must find a way to thrive under his administration without being ruled by it (I doubt Obama would disagree). It is precisely because democracies do not mistake the desires of their leaders for those of the people that we don't tend to start wars. America has begun blurring both lines, and we need to stop.
It is looking like the Democrats are going to do very well in this election, which may help: a bigger government would necessitate the spreading of power. But it will be at our nation's peril if the new, left-leaning leaders interpret their victory, as Bush did his narrow 2004 win, as a clear mandate to institute the kind of broad social changes that so many of us liberals would dearly love to see. They need to restore trust in our democracy first, and to do that they have to restore our trust in government itself by resisting the urge to treat legislation like a game of tetherball, forcing as much through as possible while they're in control.
If Obama and Biden win, after all, it will be because conservative Americans feel they cannot trust McCain with all that power, and not because they have had a sudden change of heart about the estate tax. While I may be writing this from a position of fear, I believe it: those conservatives are going to save this country by voting Obama, and they should not be thanked having their values ignored. To do so would be to ignore the national conversation that has been taking place over the past two years, and they deserve better.
We all deserve better, because all of America needs a government we can trust--not love, but trust, so that, for example, campaign promises to shrink and weaken the government seem as ludicrous as they would in any other job interview. Once we don't need to rely on the president to embody all that we stand for, we can focus on his job performance and evaluate him accordingly without getting swept away in persona.
Such scrutiny makes leaders better leaders, and it is why democracy works. I hope our leaders start working to earn back the public trust in the next few years, so that our next elections feel a little more democratic, and a lot less scary, to everyone.
I Hate Election Campaign Post-Morterms. So Here's Mine.
Every cycle the election campaigns are completely overanalyzed, with everything the loser doing being labeled "idiotic" (though Kerry put together a losing campaign like fewer others could) and everything the winner did being "visionary." Look, campaigns are important, and it's important that both sides play well. But just like soccer, most of the game is a wash, except for a few huge plays. So why did John McCain lose? Here it is, in four easy steps:
1. George W. Bush
Barack Obama certainly deserves credit for associating McCain with Bush nonstop. It's a great move and where it's really helping is downticket, because it's just hurting the Republican party all over. But listen. What this factor is really all about is every time you said to yourself "how is this race so close?" If these two are running in 2000 (even if it is McCain 2.0) I see McCain with a slight advantage. But Bush is on the verge of being the least popular president ever, so the deck was stacked before the campaign even began.
2. Economic Meltdown
Democrats' best issue is the economy. Republicans' best issue is national security. Imagine if 9-11-01 had happened on 9-11-04? Bush may have carried every single state. Of course an economic crisis is less emotionally acute than a national security crisis, but in essence that's what we have here.
3. Sarah Palin
The first two factors are things John McCain simply couldn't control. But he did control his VP pick. Now, these things are always analyzed, and the losing canididate will always be scrutinized for his VP pick. But if McCain won you wouldn't see Joe Biden on this list. John McCain really blew it with this pick because he did not vet her and because she's not competent. All the other people on the list - Romney, Lieberman, Huckabee (not Pawlenty) were at least vetted and competent. So they might not have helped, but they couldn't have brought down the ticket. He violated the first rule: do no harm (Bart and Carly - you guys remember my endless VP emails). As I said the other day, (1) Obama deserved praise for keeping this in mind and resisting the Hillary temptation, and (2) I think the idea of appealing to the base is nonsense (unless there's reason to believe you will face significant third-party opposition). I need to stop because you can go for years about Sarah Palin, but there's one other important thing: when he picked her, he instantly lost all credibility with the words "Maverick" and "experience."
4. Wasted Time
Could you imagine if the Red Sox won an ALCS six days before the NLCS wrapped up, and they spent the in-between time partying? That's essentially what John McCain did. He more-or-less locked up the nomination in January. In the seven months until the RNC, the only thing he really did was put out an ad saying "Barack Obama is Paris Hilton." He sat by idly for months. And not knowing who the nominee would be was no excuse. He should have been distancing himself from George W. Bush and saying things like "Well, no surprise here. We don't know who the Democrats are going to nominate, but we do know it's going to be yet another tax-and-spend liberal."
And that's it. That's all there is to it. There were small things like McCain's age, or Obama's debate performances, or the recent line about "spreading the wealth" (which I would guess is actually pretty effective on the six undecided voters left), or Obama's poor response time on the energy issue, or McCain's poor resource allocation decisions, but none of them were game-changers like the four listed here.
1. George W. Bush
Barack Obama certainly deserves credit for associating McCain with Bush nonstop. It's a great move and where it's really helping is downticket, because it's just hurting the Republican party all over. But listen. What this factor is really all about is every time you said to yourself "how is this race so close?" If these two are running in 2000 (even if it is McCain 2.0) I see McCain with a slight advantage. But Bush is on the verge of being the least popular president ever, so the deck was stacked before the campaign even began.
2. Economic Meltdown
Democrats' best issue is the economy. Republicans' best issue is national security. Imagine if 9-11-01 had happened on 9-11-04? Bush may have carried every single state. Of course an economic crisis is less emotionally acute than a national security crisis, but in essence that's what we have here.
3. Sarah Palin
The first two factors are things John McCain simply couldn't control. But he did control his VP pick. Now, these things are always analyzed, and the losing canididate will always be scrutinized for his VP pick. But if McCain won you wouldn't see Joe Biden on this list. John McCain really blew it with this pick because he did not vet her and because she's not competent. All the other people on the list - Romney, Lieberman, Huckabee (not Pawlenty) were at least vetted and competent. So they might not have helped, but they couldn't have brought down the ticket. He violated the first rule: do no harm (Bart and Carly - you guys remember my endless VP emails). As I said the other day, (1) Obama deserved praise for keeping this in mind and resisting the Hillary temptation, and (2) I think the idea of appealing to the base is nonsense (unless there's reason to believe you will face significant third-party opposition). I need to stop because you can go for years about Sarah Palin, but there's one other important thing: when he picked her, he instantly lost all credibility with the words "Maverick" and "experience."
4. Wasted Time
Could you imagine if the Red Sox won an ALCS six days before the NLCS wrapped up, and they spent the in-between time partying? That's essentially what John McCain did. He more-or-less locked up the nomination in January. In the seven months until the RNC, the only thing he really did was put out an ad saying "Barack Obama is Paris Hilton." He sat by idly for months. And not knowing who the nominee would be was no excuse. He should have been distancing himself from George W. Bush and saying things like "Well, no surprise here. We don't know who the Democrats are going to nominate, but we do know it's going to be yet another tax-and-spend liberal."
And that's it. That's all there is to it. There were small things like McCain's age, or Obama's debate performances, or the recent line about "spreading the wealth" (which I would guess is actually pretty effective on the six undecided voters left), or Obama's poor response time on the energy issue, or McCain's poor resource allocation decisions, but none of them were game-changers like the four listed here.
October 29, 2008
Notes, Votes, and Quotes
I really enjoyed scanning through this Congressional Quarterly summary of the positions of McCain and Obama.
October 28, 2008
That's Not Debate, That's More of the Same!
If you liked watching Sarah Palin's RNC speech mashup, you'll probably enjoy watching this debate synchronization.
October 27, 2008
October 24, 2008
I know, I know, I shouldn't let this stuff bother me...
During last night's NBC News interview with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: Who is a member of the elite?
PALIN: Oh, I guess just people who think that they're better than anyone else. And-- John McCain and I are so committed to serving every American. Hard-working, middle-class Americans who are so desiring of this economy getting put back on the right track. And winning these wars. And America's starting to reach her potential. And that is opportunity and hope provided everyone equally. So anyone who thinks that they are-- I guess-- better than anyone else, that's-- that's my definition of elitism.
WILLIAMS: So it's not education? It's not income-based? It's--
PALIN: Anyone who thinks that they're better than someone else.
WILLIAMS: --a state of mind? It's not geography?
PALIN: 'Course not.
WILLIAMS: Senator?
MCCAIN: I-- I know where a lot of 'em live. (LAUGH)
WILLIAMS: Where's that?
MCCAIN: Well, in our nation's capital and New York City. I've seen it. I've lived there. I know the town. I know-- I know what a lot of these elitists are. The ones that she never went to a cocktail party with in Georgetown. I'll be very frank with you. Who think that they can dictate what they believe to America rather than let Americans decide for themselves.
*
Firstly: Fuck you, John.
Secondly: Sounds like the 9/11 terrorists really screwed up attacking the two outposts of "fake America," huh? We probably shouldn't have even bothered picking up the pieces downtown, as the centers of this country's government and finance clearly don't matter as much as off-the-radar mining towns.
Thirdly: I don't know anyone in New York or DC who wants to "dictate what they believe to America rather than let Americans decide for themselves." In fact, I think that most of us would rather McCain, Palin and their friends kept what they believe about our bodies, our significant others, and our money to themselves and let us decide for ourselves.
Fourthly: Does anyone work at that campaign? Is elitism geographic or not? Get your stories straight.
WILLIAMS: Who is a member of the elite?
PALIN: Oh, I guess just people who think that they're better than anyone else. And-- John McCain and I are so committed to serving every American. Hard-working, middle-class Americans who are so desiring of this economy getting put back on the right track. And winning these wars. And America's starting to reach her potential. And that is opportunity and hope provided everyone equally. So anyone who thinks that they are-- I guess-- better than anyone else, that's-- that's my definition of elitism.
WILLIAMS: So it's not education? It's not income-based? It's--
PALIN: Anyone who thinks that they're better than someone else.
WILLIAMS: --a state of mind? It's not geography?
PALIN: 'Course not.
WILLIAMS: Senator?
MCCAIN: I-- I know where a lot of 'em live. (LAUGH)
WILLIAMS: Where's that?
MCCAIN: Well, in our nation's capital and New York City. I've seen it. I've lived there. I know the town. I know-- I know what a lot of these elitists are. The ones that she never went to a cocktail party with in Georgetown. I'll be very frank with you. Who think that they can dictate what they believe to America rather than let Americans decide for themselves.
*
Firstly: Fuck you, John.
Secondly: Sounds like the 9/11 terrorists really screwed up attacking the two outposts of "fake America," huh? We probably shouldn't have even bothered picking up the pieces downtown, as the centers of this country's government and finance clearly don't matter as much as off-the-radar mining towns.
Thirdly: I don't know anyone in New York or DC who wants to "dictate what they believe to America rather than let Americans decide for themselves." In fact, I think that most of us would rather McCain, Palin and their friends kept what they believe about our bodies, our significant others, and our money to themselves and let us decide for ourselves.
Fourthly: Does anyone work at that campaign? Is elitism geographic or not? Get your stories straight.
October 22, 2008
McCain's Best Strategy
Look, let's face it. John McCain is starting down the barrel of an electoral gun. You're his campaign manager. What are you going to do?
First of all, for two months McCain should have been making sure that America knew it was McCain-Palin against Obama-Wright. Or Wright-Obama. Take your pick.
But beyond that, it's clear now that the Sarah Palin pick is disastrous. She's now quite unpopular and, at $150,000, rather expensive. C'mon Maverick, grow some nads. Drop Sarah Palin.
Now, unfortunately the religious extremist joining McCain on the ticket has really excited the base. Were it a month ago McCain could go back and pick Lieberman or Ridge and still pass Electoral Politics 101. But it's not a month ago.
However, something happened in the last month: an epic economic meltdown. If only there was a VP candidate who frames himself as strong on the economy and a staunch conservative. I know it's brash; I know it's extreme. But John McCain has no options left. Mitt Romney for Vice President.
That's all I've got.
First of all, for two months McCain should have been making sure that America knew it was McCain-Palin against Obama-Wright. Or Wright-Obama. Take your pick.
But beyond that, it's clear now that the Sarah Palin pick is disastrous. She's now quite unpopular and, at $150,000, rather expensive. C'mon Maverick, grow some nads. Drop Sarah Palin.
Now, unfortunately the religious extremist joining McCain on the ticket has really excited the base. Were it a month ago McCain could go back and pick Lieberman or Ridge and still pass Electoral Politics 101. But it's not a month ago.
However, something happened in the last month: an epic economic meltdown. If only there was a VP candidate who frames himself as strong on the economy and a staunch conservative. I know it's brash; I know it's extreme. But John McCain has no options left. Mitt Romney for Vice President.
That's all I've got.
October 21, 2008
What the Hell is the McCain Campaign Doing?
I refer you to the chart I posted yesterday. Now, if you start at the bottom and go up, McCain has to get every state up to and including Colorado to win this election (never heard that before ...).
So here's his new strategy. He does have the wisdom and foresight to abandon New Mexico and, yes, Iowa. Believe it or not, Mr. "I'm gonna give you a little straight talk - I oppose ethanol subsidies" McCain isn't going to win Iowa.
I'm sorry. But really?! You guys really figured that out? You're down 12.3 pts as of yesterday, and out of 28 polls in the state, you've been losing in 27 and tied in 1. Why the hell has that campaign spent a single dollar since September in Iowa?
OK, so congratulations, they've finally seen the light. They're abandoning Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado. Wait, what?! Yes folks, the McCain campaign is giving up on Colorado.
Now let's look at our chart. If McCain wins all the states up to but not including Colorado, he of course falls short, with 265 EVs. So he's got to pick them up somewhere right?
So, his strategy is (say it quickly in your head), while defending Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, and Georgia, to make a play for Pennsylvania.
I'm sorry for my tone this morning, but I can't for the life of me understand what the hell they're thinking! If I were a Republican I'd be writing things right here that would certainly get me fired from my job. This is much worse than watching Kerry lie down and take those Swift Boat attacks. I mean, I guess they're looking at electoral votes, but come on! If you're going after a state where you're down 9 points why not go all out? You're down 18 in California ... twice the deficit, but more than twice the electoral votes, right?
The bottom line is that in many ways I would have been a better strategist than these loons. McCain took months to try to frame Obama, and finally the best he did was Paris Hilton. He failed Electoral Politics 101 when, after correctly pandering to the right during the primary, he incorrectly continued to pander to the right during the general, the pinnacle of which was one of the most disastrous VP choices in electoral history. With Palin, he failed rule no. 1: Do No Harm. Obama resisted the temptation to choose Hillary because his guys understood rule number one. McCain proceeded to fail on the bailout and fail on the "suspension of his campaign." Finally, he failed in trying to connect Obama to his shady associations, by choosing the third best guy to attack him with (really - you choose Bill Ayers over Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko?). This campaign is over. And even now, as we sit at about 364-174 or so, I still can't help but wonder - why is this election so close?
So here's his new strategy. He does have the wisdom and foresight to abandon New Mexico and, yes, Iowa. Believe it or not, Mr. "I'm gonna give you a little straight talk - I oppose ethanol subsidies" McCain isn't going to win Iowa.
I'm sorry. But really?! You guys really figured that out? You're down 12.3 pts as of yesterday, and out of 28 polls in the state, you've been losing in 27 and tied in 1. Why the hell has that campaign spent a single dollar since September in Iowa?
OK, so congratulations, they've finally seen the light. They're abandoning Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado. Wait, what?! Yes folks, the McCain campaign is giving up on Colorado.
Now let's look at our chart. If McCain wins all the states up to but not including Colorado, he of course falls short, with 265 EVs. So he's got to pick them up somewhere right?
So, his strategy is (say it quickly in your head), while defending Virginia, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, and Georgia, to make a play for Pennsylvania.
I'm sorry for my tone this morning, but I can't for the life of me understand what the hell they're thinking! If I were a Republican I'd be writing things right here that would certainly get me fired from my job. This is much worse than watching Kerry lie down and take those Swift Boat attacks. I mean, I guess they're looking at electoral votes, but come on! If you're going after a state where you're down 9 points why not go all out? You're down 18 in California ... twice the deficit, but more than twice the electoral votes, right?
The bottom line is that in many ways I would have been a better strategist than these loons. McCain took months to try to frame Obama, and finally the best he did was Paris Hilton. He failed Electoral Politics 101 when, after correctly pandering to the right during the primary, he incorrectly continued to pander to the right during the general, the pinnacle of which was one of the most disastrous VP choices in electoral history. With Palin, he failed rule no. 1: Do No Harm. Obama resisted the temptation to choose Hillary because his guys understood rule number one. McCain proceeded to fail on the bailout and fail on the "suspension of his campaign." Finally, he failed in trying to connect Obama to his shady associations, by choosing the third best guy to attack him with (really - you choose Bill Ayers over Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko?). This campaign is over. And even now, as we sit at about 364-174 or so, I still can't help but wonder - why is this election so close?
October 20, 2008
Heads Up!
RCP, Oct 14 - Obama +8.2
RCP, Oct 20 - Obama +4.8
Can we, yet again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
(Side note: Obama's quick rise came at a rate of almost exactly 1 pt per 3 days. If he loses 1 pt per 3 days for the 15 days until the election, then McCain would hold a 0.2 pt "lead" over Obama. Of course, this is unlikely without a significant crisis, so don't get too worried.)
Extra side note: I'm sure you've read, but:
Old fundraising record: Barack Obama, 2008 (August) - $66 million
New fundraising record: Barack Obama, 2008 (September) - $150 million.
Keep in mind that September's totals include the $10 or $11 million raised in both the twenty-four hours following the RNC, as well as the quasi-infamous Barbra Streisand dinner.
RCP, Oct 20 - Obama +4.8
Can we, yet again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
(Side note: Obama's quick rise came at a rate of almost exactly 1 pt per 3 days. If he loses 1 pt per 3 days for the 15 days until the election, then McCain would hold a 0.2 pt "lead" over Obama. Of course, this is unlikely without a significant crisis, so don't get too worried.)
Extra side note: I'm sure you've read, but:
Old fundraising record: Barack Obama, 2008 (August) - $66 million
New fundraising record: Barack Obama, 2008 (September) - $150 million.
Keep in mind that September's totals include the $10 or $11 million raised in both the twenty-four hours following the RNC, as well as the quasi-infamous Barbra Streisand dinner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
