Taking advantage of coincidence, porn star Lisa Ann has played both Sarah Palin and Tina Fey in pornographic parodies of, respectively, Sarah Palin's life and 30 Rock. Check out the hilarious trailers below .
Who's Nailin' Paylin? (This trailer is completely safe for work.)
30 Rock: A XXX Parody (This trailer is less safe for work due to a few women in skimpy clothing and some swearing.)
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palin. Show all posts
November 21, 2009
August 18, 2009
Whackjob Roundup.
Maureen Dowd wrote a hilarious article this week entitled "Sarah's Ghoulish Carousel" about Sarah Palin's recent fear-mongering and attempts to keep her face in the national spotlight. The article includes hilarious lines like: "Consistency was long ago sent to a death panel in Palin world."
Michele Bachmann has revealed that she will only run for president "If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do [...]." Apparently Bachmann only decided to run for Congress because god "called" her to say that she should. After she was told by god to run she prayed and fasted for three days to confirm that she had correctly heard god's will. Jesus Christ that is crazy (note the lack of direct address--I refuse to talk to Jesus, even if he did manage to get Bachmann into office).
Feel free to add other deserving whackjob news to this thread.
Let's bring the blog back, people. I miss reading the posts here.
Michele Bachmann has revealed that she will only run for president "If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do [...]." Apparently Bachmann only decided to run for Congress because god "called" her to say that she should. After she was told by god to run she prayed and fasted for three days to confirm that she had correctly heard god's will. Jesus Christ that is crazy (note the lack of direct address--I refuse to talk to Jesus, even if he did manage to get Bachmann into office).
Feel free to add other deserving whackjob news to this thread.
Let's bring the blog back, people. I miss reading the posts here.
June 08, 2009
Nate Silver confounds me again
A pretty fascinating fivethirtyeight post from yesterday: The Palin Paradox: Women More Likely to Elected in Male-Dominated Districts.
His findings are exactly what it sounds like they are. Even when he isolates Democratic-leaning (and thus more likely to elect a woman at all) districts, "the most male-dominated from among these strongly Democratic districts elected women in 10 out of 15 instances. The 15 most female districts elected just 3 women."
So, "all told, after controlling for the district's partisan affiliation, male-dominated districts were more than twice as likely to elect a Congresswoman as were female-dominated districts."
What he doesn't have, of course, is explanation for this seemingly - counter intuitive phenomenon. But he has some interesting thoughts:
"It's possible, and maybe even somewhat likely, that there is some sort of latent variable affecting both the sex ratios and elections to the Congress that I haven't accounted for .... Perhaps in male-dominated areas, women are more likely to violate traditional sex roles including something like running for political office, which has traditionally been a male-dominated occupation -- the Sarah Palin frontierswoman caricature works well here. It would be interesting to know whether there more women actually running for office in male-dominated areas, or rather, whether they are winning more often when they do run. Or perhaps this is a phenomenon that goes beyond politics, and career growth is retarded for the dominant gender when there is an insufficient number of the opposite one. Or perhaps there is even something more Freudian: a lack of female companionship (or vice versa) triggers a yearning for it that is manifested in the way we vote."
His findings are exactly what it sounds like they are. Even when he isolates Democratic-leaning (and thus more likely to elect a woman at all) districts, "the most male-dominated from among these strongly Democratic districts elected women in 10 out of 15 instances. The 15 most female districts elected just 3 women."
So, "all told, after controlling for the district's partisan affiliation, male-dominated districts were more than twice as likely to elect a Congresswoman as were female-dominated districts."
What he doesn't have, of course, is explanation for this seemingly - counter intuitive phenomenon. But he has some interesting thoughts:
"It's possible, and maybe even somewhat likely, that there is some sort of latent variable affecting both the sex ratios and elections to the Congress that I haven't accounted for .... Perhaps in male-dominated areas, women are more likely to violate traditional sex roles including something like running for political office, which has traditionally been a male-dominated occupation -- the Sarah Palin frontierswoman caricature works well here. It would be interesting to know whether there more women actually running for office in male-dominated areas, or rather, whether they are winning more often when they do run. Or perhaps this is a phenomenon that goes beyond politics, and career growth is retarded for the dominant gender when there is an insufficient number of the opposite one. Or perhaps there is even something more Freudian: a lack of female companionship (or vice versa) triggers a yearning for it that is manifested in the way we vote."
February 12, 2009
Articles!
A quick article dump to start the day’s blogging activities.
”Sarah Palin's $159,050 Conflict of Interest” - Todd Palin is currently racing a “snow machine” 1,971 miles across Alaska, during which his “Arctic Cat's powerful two-stroke engine will emit the same amount of hydrocarbons as an automobile driving from Chicago to San Francisco and back 150 times.” Fantastic. And it only gets trashier and more polluting. First, the pollution: “[During the race] Todd Palin will release as many cancer-causing and smog-forming pollutants as a Chevy Malibu driven around the Earth at its equator 28 times.” Now, the conflict of interest: the race is sponsored by “[…] the petroleum giants Tesoro and Conoco-Phillips; State Farm, Wells Fargo, Frontier Airlines, Alaska Airlines and the Alaska First National Bank.” You may be saying, “But you are not being fair. Maybe the Palins do not get a shady benefit from this.” Well, Todd is an annual competitor (seemingly surprising for a race with a field of 40 people willing to do this kind of evil to the environment) who has only one four times. “Once after Sarah was elected to the Wasilla City Council, once after she was elected mayor, the year she was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, and the year she was elected governor.” Okay, okay, maybe I jumped the gun. Sorry for trying to shame such an upstanding family.
“Video Games Are Good For Children – EU Report” - Nothing too surprising here, but it is nice to have confirmation of something I believe: An EU panel determined that "’video games can stimulate learning of facts and skills such as strategic thinking, creativity, cooperation and innovative thinking, which are important skills in the information society.’" Yay! An excuse to play more video games!
Unemployment as stimulus -
“A Novel Approach: Using Unemployment Benefits as a Means for Stimulus” – An interesting plan to maximize the benefits created by unemployment payments: instead of paying out cash to an unemployed person for a set amount of time provide that person with a voucher that subsidizes them as an employee. For example, assume Mr. Doe is unemployed and receives $200 each week in unemployment payments ant that were anyone to hire Mr. Doe it would cost that firm $500 each week, a (made-up) prohibitive amount. The likely outcome here is that he remains unemployed. But if Mr. Doe can suddenly walk into an interview and say, “Instead of costing you $500 each week I will only cost you $300 each week and the money that would have been my unemployment check is now paying the other $200 of the salary.” Obviously this has limitations (e.g. what happens when Mr. Doe’s salary is no longer subsidized?), but in the short term this plan creates a greater overall income, implying a greater overall level of consumption, for the same government investment. At the same time it increases the overall production level of the economy.
“Big Satellites Collide 500 Miles Over Siberia” – This story seems pretty ridiculous at first, though it does highlight the very real concern of the volume of junk orbiting Earth. Apparently a non-functional Russian satellite launched in 1993 and described as “[…] out of control” crashed into a commercial satellite launched in 1997, creating thousands of particles that will now orbit Earth waiting to smash into other man-made satellites. I can’t help but think of this as a case of modern space zombies in which each zombie (read: smashed satellite) spends the rest of its time trying to create more zombies (read: smash other satellites). For perspective on the dangers we are facing from orbiting junk only fifty-two years into man’s era of sending crap into space: “[…] orbital debris is now the biggest threat to a space shuttle in flight, surpassing the dangers of liftoff and return to Earth.” I will now officially swear off space flight until we have orbiting Roombas keeping me safe.
“Letting Scientists Off the Leash” - This is an interesting article written by a researcher at Stanford University who discusses the flaws in the way money for research is distributed. His main point is that the typically conservative review boards that approve funding for grant proposals do not fund very imaginative or risky research. This leads to a situation where most of the ideas we are pursuing are those that we are already sure we can turn into a profit, not those that could have a substantially larger impact but at the same time carry larger risks (in that they are more likely than the boring projects to have an outcome different from that discussed when the grant was proposed). I don’t know too much about this, but I do support the idea of devising a more efficient means of identifying and funding riskier and more creative research.
”Sarah Palin's $159,050 Conflict of Interest” - Todd Palin is currently racing a “snow machine” 1,971 miles across Alaska, during which his “Arctic Cat's powerful two-stroke engine will emit the same amount of hydrocarbons as an automobile driving from Chicago to San Francisco and back 150 times.” Fantastic. And it only gets trashier and more polluting. First, the pollution: “[During the race] Todd Palin will release as many cancer-causing and smog-forming pollutants as a Chevy Malibu driven around the Earth at its equator 28 times.” Now, the conflict of interest: the race is sponsored by “[…] the petroleum giants Tesoro and Conoco-Phillips; State Farm, Wells Fargo, Frontier Airlines, Alaska Airlines and the Alaska First National Bank.” You may be saying, “But you are not being fair. Maybe the Palins do not get a shady benefit from this.” Well, Todd is an annual competitor (seemingly surprising for a race with a field of 40 people willing to do this kind of evil to the environment) who has only one four times. “Once after Sarah was elected to the Wasilla City Council, once after she was elected mayor, the year she was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, and the year she was elected governor.” Okay, okay, maybe I jumped the gun. Sorry for trying to shame such an upstanding family.
“Video Games Are Good For Children – EU Report” - Nothing too surprising here, but it is nice to have confirmation of something I believe: An EU panel determined that "’video games can stimulate learning of facts and skills such as strategic thinking, creativity, cooperation and innovative thinking, which are important skills in the information society.’" Yay! An excuse to play more video games!
Unemployment as stimulus -
“A Novel Approach: Using Unemployment Benefits as a Means for Stimulus” – An interesting plan to maximize the benefits created by unemployment payments: instead of paying out cash to an unemployed person for a set amount of time provide that person with a voucher that subsidizes them as an employee. For example, assume Mr. Doe is unemployed and receives $200 each week in unemployment payments ant that were anyone to hire Mr. Doe it would cost that firm $500 each week, a (made-up) prohibitive amount. The likely outcome here is that he remains unemployed. But if Mr. Doe can suddenly walk into an interview and say, “Instead of costing you $500 each week I will only cost you $300 each week and the money that would have been my unemployment check is now paying the other $200 of the salary.” Obviously this has limitations (e.g. what happens when Mr. Doe’s salary is no longer subsidized?), but in the short term this plan creates a greater overall income, implying a greater overall level of consumption, for the same government investment. At the same time it increases the overall production level of the economy.
“Big Satellites Collide 500 Miles Over Siberia” – This story seems pretty ridiculous at first, though it does highlight the very real concern of the volume of junk orbiting Earth. Apparently a non-functional Russian satellite launched in 1993 and described as “[…] out of control” crashed into a commercial satellite launched in 1997, creating thousands of particles that will now orbit Earth waiting to smash into other man-made satellites. I can’t help but think of this as a case of modern space zombies in which each zombie (read: smashed satellite) spends the rest of its time trying to create more zombies (read: smash other satellites). For perspective on the dangers we are facing from orbiting junk only fifty-two years into man’s era of sending crap into space: “[…] orbital debris is now the biggest threat to a space shuttle in flight, surpassing the dangers of liftoff and return to Earth.” I will now officially swear off space flight until we have orbiting Roombas keeping me safe.
“Letting Scientists Off the Leash” - This is an interesting article written by a researcher at Stanford University who discusses the flaws in the way money for research is distributed. His main point is that the typically conservative review boards that approve funding for grant proposals do not fund very imaginative or risky research. This leads to a situation where most of the ideas we are pursuing are those that we are already sure we can turn into a profit, not those that could have a substantially larger impact but at the same time carry larger risks (in that they are more likely than the boring projects to have an outcome different from that discussed when the grant was proposed). I don’t know too much about this, but I do support the idea of devising a more efficient means of identifying and funding riskier and more creative research.
December 19, 2008
Bristol's in the news
Her future mother-in-law got nailed with six felony drug charges by an undercover operation. Also, apparently, Bristol is due tomorrow.
November 06, 2008
Senator Palin?
OK, so I've been looking around and it seems the official word is that if Stevens resigns or is expelled (don't count on the first one, the second one is possible) then it is the duty of the Governor of Alaska to call for a special election, which takes place 60-90 days after the declaration. Palin would face no legal or ethical hurdles in running in that election herself, and my feeling is that she'd win on an order or 70-25 or so. She cannot, however, appoint herself (or anyone else) to the seat under any circumstances
PS - MSNBC has called Oregon's senate race for Democrat Jeff Merkley. Yesterday Merkley was down by about 4,000 votes with 77% reporting. Today he is up by 39,000 votes with 82% reporting. I guess Portland came in.
Democrats - 57
Republicans - 40
Not Decided - AK, MN (recount will take weeks), GA (likely going to Dec 2 runoff)
All undecided races lean Republican
PS - MSNBC has called Oregon's senate race for Democrat Jeff Merkley. Yesterday Merkley was down by about 4,000 votes with 77% reporting. Today he is up by 39,000 votes with 82% reporting. I guess Portland came in.
Democrats - 57
Republicans - 40
Not Decided - AK, MN (recount will take weeks), GA (likely going to Dec 2 runoff)
All undecided races lean Republican
November 05, 2008
Super-simple preliminary analysis and back-patting
OK, first a back pat. This is the second consecutive presidential election where I went to bed perfect. Now, last time I went to sleep 48-for-48 and woke up 48-for-51 (I called all three remaining states - IA, NM, and OH, and thus the presidency - for Kerry).
Last night I was 47-for-47, with MT, MO, IN, and NC hanging in the balance. It looks this time as though I went 50-for-51, getting MT, MO, and NC but missing on IN. As I said for months, Indiana was the toughest of swing states, although Missouri finished closer than any other state. So perfection came and teased me. It was that Dr. Pepper vending machine in the desert in that episode of Family Guy; I am left only with the bitter taste of RC Cola.
But seriously, let's go back to how awesome I am. Ohio was supposed to be the motherlode, the decider. CNN pandered to Ohio nonstop, even filling their debate focus groups with Ohio voters. Pollster.com called it a tossup, some even predicted it would go for McCain. Me? I put it in the Safe Obama column.
I don't know what the experience was like for you, but where I was, the call of Ohio for Obama came really out-of-nowhere and didn't have the right effect. If we had any idea they were about to call it, we would have all been watching closely popped the champagne then. But instead it just came off like any other state, which we dutifully colored blue before moving on. And also, I nailed Florida, even though some people had their doubts.
I didn't do senate races in 2004 but I did in 2006, and I got 'em all. And that wasn't an easy race. So taking an-actually-perfect record into the '08 senate race how'd I do? Well, even the networks don't know, but so far I'm 31-for-31, with GA, AK, OR, and MN left. Technically the race in MN is over, but there will be a recount. In Oregon, my guy Merkley is a whisper behind with mostly Democratic areas left to count. In Georgia, unless something really crazy goes down with the early votes (which is possible - plus, Bart asked me yesterday to predict one state that would go all crazy on us, and I said Georgia) Chambliss will take that seat, putting me at 34-for-34.
And then there's freaking Alaska.
Alaska, you are the worst state ever. Don Young was reelected despite involvement with Jack Abramoff and VECO, which works with pipelines in Alaska and has plead guilty to bribing Alaskan politicians. VECO was also behind the construction on Ted Stevens' house that resulted in him being convicted of seven felony counts. (His defense was simple: "They didn't convict me."). Yet Uncle Ted got reelected, too? And now Sarah Palin might be a couple months away from promotion to the United States Senate? God I hate you, Alaska.
Interestingly, the polling was way off in Alaska. No state outperformed my model for McCain as much as Alaska did (12-13 pts) and similar results were seen in the House and Senate races. In fact, of the 25 presidential polls in Alaska, the result seen last night outperformed 24 of them, with one Rasmussen poll from Sep 9 being the exception. I hate to sound partisan here, but with this much disparity and this much corruption, is it possible the votes counted weren't the same as the votes cast?
Last night I was 47-for-47, with MT, MO, IN, and NC hanging in the balance. It looks this time as though I went 50-for-51, getting MT, MO, and NC but missing on IN. As I said for months, Indiana was the toughest of swing states, although Missouri finished closer than any other state. So perfection came and teased me. It was that Dr. Pepper vending machine in the desert in that episode of Family Guy; I am left only with the bitter taste of RC Cola.
But seriously, let's go back to how awesome I am. Ohio was supposed to be the motherlode, the decider. CNN pandered to Ohio nonstop, even filling their debate focus groups with Ohio voters. Pollster.com called it a tossup, some even predicted it would go for McCain. Me? I put it in the Safe Obama column.
I don't know what the experience was like for you, but where I was, the call of Ohio for Obama came really out-of-nowhere and didn't have the right effect. If we had any idea they were about to call it, we would have all been watching closely popped the champagne then. But instead it just came off like any other state, which we dutifully colored blue before moving on. And also, I nailed Florida, even though some people had their doubts.
I didn't do senate races in 2004 but I did in 2006, and I got 'em all. And that wasn't an easy race. So taking an-actually-perfect record into the '08 senate race how'd I do? Well, even the networks don't know, but so far I'm 31-for-31, with GA, AK, OR, and MN left. Technically the race in MN is over, but there will be a recount. In Oregon, my guy Merkley is a whisper behind with mostly Democratic areas left to count. In Georgia, unless something really crazy goes down with the early votes (which is possible - plus, Bart asked me yesterday to predict one state that would go all crazy on us, and I said Georgia) Chambliss will take that seat, putting me at 34-for-34.
And then there's freaking Alaska.
Alaska, you are the worst state ever. Don Young was reelected despite involvement with Jack Abramoff and VECO, which works with pipelines in Alaska and has plead guilty to bribing Alaskan politicians. VECO was also behind the construction on Ted Stevens' house that resulted in him being convicted of seven felony counts. (His defense was simple: "They didn't convict me."). Yet Uncle Ted got reelected, too? And now Sarah Palin might be a couple months away from promotion to the United States Senate? God I hate you, Alaska.
Interestingly, the polling was way off in Alaska. No state outperformed my model for McCain as much as Alaska did (12-13 pts) and similar results were seen in the House and Senate races. In fact, of the 25 presidential polls in Alaska, the result seen last night outperformed 24 of them, with one Rasmussen poll from Sep 9 being the exception. I hate to sound partisan here, but with this much disparity and this much corruption, is it possible the votes counted weren't the same as the votes cast?
November 04, 2008
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.
October 31, 2008
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 25, 2008
Are You Kidding Me?!
OK, so this isn't her fault, but I can still be angry.
Last night Sarah Palin dropped a ceremonial first puck at an NHL game for the second time. After getting the usual treatment from the ever-unfriendly crowd in Philadelphia two weeks ago, this time she found herself in much friendlier St. Louis, where the Blues were hosting the Kings.
Unfortunately, as the Blues' all-star goaltender Manny Legace (pronounced legacy) stepped out onto the ice before the game, an official accidentally shifted the carpet laid out for Governor Palin and Legace fell, resulting in a minor hip injury.
Legace is out tonight, but the Blues are up 3-0 in the waning moments of the second period. He should be back for next Thursday's game against the poorly-named Carolina Hurricanes. Nevertheless, Sarah Palin continues to ruin everything she's associated with.
UPDATE: Five minutes into the third period, and just over four periods into his career (and on the way to a shutout in his first career start), Blues backup Ben Bishop has left the game with an injury. Fan-freakin'-tastic.
Last night Sarah Palin dropped a ceremonial first puck at an NHL game for the second time. After getting the usual treatment from the ever-unfriendly crowd in Philadelphia two weeks ago, this time she found herself in much friendlier St. Louis, where the Blues were hosting the Kings.
Unfortunately, as the Blues' all-star goaltender Manny Legace (pronounced legacy) stepped out onto the ice before the game, an official accidentally shifted the carpet laid out for Governor Palin and Legace fell, resulting in a minor hip injury.
Legace is out tonight, but the Blues are up 3-0 in the waning moments of the second period. He should be back for next Thursday's game against the poorly-named Carolina Hurricanes. Nevertheless, Sarah Palin continues to ruin everything she's associated with.
UPDATE: Five minutes into the third period, and just over four periods into his career (and on the way to a shutout in his first career start), Blues backup Ben Bishop has left the game with an injury. Fan-freakin'-tastic.
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 20, 2008
An Interesting Read
Of course I'd heard of Adam Brinckley (sp?) before, if nowhere else than the Report. He's the guy who, in February 2007, started a blog called "Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President." If nothing else, you gotta give the guy credit for his insight.
Anyway, after he was mentioned on 538 this morning, I decided to stop over and start reading it from early August on through the announcement of the pick. Nothing earth-shattering, but an interesting read nonetheless.
Anyway, after he was mentioned on 538 this morning, I decided to stop over and start reading it from early August on through the announcement of the pick. Nothing earth-shattering, but an interesting read nonetheless.
October 16, 2008
Think It's Real?
Apparently Sarah Palin has more in common with W. than I thought.
Update: Creepy. I got an email saying that this post had been posted. When I clicked on it, the ad showing in my Gmail read "Sarah Palin's IQ is 120." (It was an ad for an online IQ test)
Update: Creepy. I got an email saying that this post had been posted. When I clicked on it, the ad showing in my Gmail read "Sarah Palin's IQ is 120." (It was an ad for an online IQ test)
October 14, 2008
October 13, 2008
October 07, 2008
Palin debate flow chart
This is from Daily Kos, which is ....Daily Kos, so obviously break out your nugget of salt, but this is pretty funny.
October 06, 2008
Predictions for the debate
I saw the cartoon below and immediately became elated because Biden will not have to appear in public ever again before the election.
That said, I was hoping to hear predictions about the debate tomorrow night. I think McCain may attempt to continue the negative streak, but will hit a stone wall (perhaps a Stonewall is more appropriate, as many of us went to NYU) because of both Obama's ability to counter gracefully and also the town-hall style of the debate. Also because of the format, I feel it will be easier for Obama to do well; McCain is a zombie, after all. I don't really have anything else to add on this topic, so I will move on.
Question: why is there no debate closer to the election? Is this simply an effort to prevent a post-debate bump from deciding the election? Or, is it a vast, liberal media plot to prevent John McCain's sparkling personality and graceful way with words from winning over the undecideds and the weak liberals? Thoughts?
That said, I was hoping to hear predictions about the debate tomorrow night. I think McCain may attempt to continue the negative streak, but will hit a stone wall (perhaps a Stonewall is more appropriate, as many of us went to NYU) because of both Obama's ability to counter gracefully and also the town-hall style of the debate. Also because of the format, I feel it will be easier for Obama to do well; McCain is a zombie, after all. I don't really have anything else to add on this topic, so I will move on.
Question: why is there no debate closer to the election? Is this simply an effort to prevent a post-debate bump from deciding the election? Or, is it a vast, liberal media plot to prevent John McCain's sparkling personality and graceful way with words from winning over the undecideds and the weak liberals? Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
