November 10, 2008
Franken's chances
I really enjoyed this post on FiveThirtyEight. I know Chris checks every post on that site, but how about everyone else? Is it pointless or helpful to highlight particularly good posts from there?
November 07, 2008
I found that which makes me forget about election coverage: JCVD!
Now, some of you may think that JCVD is a disease; it is not (the disease you are thinking of is CJD), but perhaps the idea of disease is an apt metaphor. Jean-Claude Van Damme (JCVD) used to be epidemic in our society, commanding our news coverage, our hearts, and our minds. Recently, however, JCVD has lost that elusive 'hot new thing' label, something that bird flu and mad-cow disease can tell you all about. Have no fear, though, as JCVD will now (I swear on my life that what you are about to read is true) be playing himself in a French meta-comedy-action film entitled JCVD, in which our down-and-out hero attempts to recover some semblance of a respectable life only to find himself trapped in a bank robbery in Brussels. I highly recommend checking out the Wikipedia page.
I cannot wait for Nicolas Cage to work with Van Damme on National Treasure VII: The Bloodiest Epic Treasure Yet!
I cannot wait for Nicolas Cage to work with Van Damme on National Treasure VII: The Bloodiest Epic Treasure Yet!
More lessons from the past
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics."
~F.D.R., 1937
I can't get over how these types of quotes - like the Whig I quoted earlier - show how clearly we fail to learn from the past.
On a slightly different note, with all the comparisons being tossed around, "Obama is the new MLK Jr.!" "Obama is the new Mandela!" I really think that - in situation, style, and policy - FDR is the most apt.
~F.D.R., 1937
I can't get over how these types of quotes - like the Whig I quoted earlier - show how clearly we fail to learn from the past.
On a slightly different note, with all the comparisons being tossed around, "Obama is the new MLK Jr.!" "Obama is the new Mandela!" I really think that - in situation, style, and policy - FDR is the most apt.
The election by numbers
I enjoyed this set of interesting facts about the election. It is not quite of the same caliber as Chris' analyses, but it does highlight some interesting aspects of the election (e.g. not a single county in Oklahoma had a majority vote for Barack).
Interesting Read
Science + Prison + Psychopaths...
Suffering Souls
It's a long article, but worth it. (Well, worth it to me. I work in healthcare now and have previously had involvement with the prisoner's rights.)
Suffering Souls
It's a long article, but worth it. (Well, worth it to me. I work in healthcare now and have previously had involvement with the prisoner's rights.)
Wait, the new president consults experts???
I love Obama. From a NYT article:
I guess the important part is that he consults real experts.
No incoming president in modern times has been so pressured to begin governing, in effect, before he is sworn into office. With that in mind, Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. will meet on Friday with members of a new economic advisory board.
The group, assembled to offer wide-ranging advice, includes the billionaire investor Warren Buffett; Mr. Summers and his predecessor as Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin; Paul A. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman; and Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google.
I guess the important part is that he consults real experts.
November 06, 2008
ain't it the truth...
Here We Go!
OK, I promise I won't do this except this once, but we've already got a poll on the 2012 election.
Newsweek, 10/24/2008, 1,092 RV
Item #21:
If John McCain is not elected president, which one of the following three possible candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?
Mitt Romney - 36%
Mike Huckabee - 27%
Sarah Palin - 21%
Other/Don't Know - 8%
Newsweek, 10/24/2008, 1,092 RV
Item #21:
If John McCain is not elected president, which one of the following three possible candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012?
Mitt Romney - 36%
Mike Huckabee - 27%
Sarah Palin - 21%
Other/Don't Know - 8%
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
Remind me again ... ?
I heard there was some big to-do on Tuesday night. Some, like, history thing? A bunch of nerds getting together to particpate in a civics project, maybe? Yeah - how'd that turn out?
November 05, 2008
Now you *can* be disappointed in Missouri
Missouri voters yesterday passed Constitutional Amendment 1, which makes English the language in which all government meetings must be conducted. Trust me, that's not an issue anyway. But what's really disappointing is that it passed overwhelmingly, 86-14.
We did pass a resolution to force our utilities to use renewable energy. And hey, at least when we affect other people we got it right!
We did pass a resolution to force our utilities to use renewable energy. And hey, at least when we affect other people we got it right!
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?
Pollster Preempt
Be on the lookout for everybody, from Rasmussen to yes, 538, to be spinning the numbers to show how great they did. Of course, I'll probably do the same, but still be on the lookout for it.
Looks like I missed one state (MO). I said the House was 253-172 with 10 tossups. MSNBC projects 258-177. I'll take that as a victory. In a contest we had at our party I put down 257-178.
Looks like I missed one state (MO). I said the House was 253-172 with 10 tossups. MSNBC projects 258-177. I'll take that as a victory. In a contest we had at our party I put down 257-178.
Anger
So I turned on talk radio on my five minute drive to work this morning. I put on FOX News, because I wanted to see what a day like this is like on the right.
They had a Democrat caller (who was black), and they went back and forth (I should mention that the show on at this time is definitely conservative, but not extreme. I disagree with the guys strongly, but they're not the Hannity/Limbaugh types) and she was saying that she was actually more excited about Palin losing than Obama winning (though still really excited about that). When asked why, she said that Palin had brought about so much division and anger and hatred in the country, and that she wouldn't condemn the racist things shouted during her rallies. The response?
"An African-American was just elected president and you think you still have the right to bitch about racism?"
I hope this isn't a preview of the nextfour eight years.
They had a Democrat caller (who was black), and they went back and forth (I should mention that the show on at this time is definitely conservative, but not extreme. I disagree with the guys strongly, but they're not the Hannity/Limbaugh types) and she was saying that she was actually more excited about Palin losing than Obama winning (though still really excited about that). When asked why, she said that Palin had brought about so much division and anger and hatred in the country, and that she wouldn't condemn the racist things shouted during her rallies. The response?
"An African-American was just elected president and you think you still have the right to bitch about racism?"
I hope this isn't a preview of the next
Morning Status
UPDATE3: MSNBC calls Missouri for John McCain. Of the 2.9 million votes cast, John McCain won 49.44% and Barack Obama won 49.24%. McCain's current margin of victory is 5,868 votes.
UPDATE2: With 92% reporting, LA Times shows banning gay marriage is winning in California. And you know what - if you want to support it, that's one thing. But if you're really this excited about it, you just suck.
UPDATE: Al Franken has lost his race in MN, but per state law, the 600-vote difference kicks in an automatic recount.
As it stands, Obama (obviously) has won. Indiana and Montana were called late last night/early this morning for Obama and McCain respectively. North Carolina is too close to call with 99% reporting. Not to be outdone, Missouri is too close to call with 100% reporting. Finally, there may be indications that Georgia has been called too early, and Nate mentioned that the total vote level is much lower than expected, so there may be something like early votes left to count.
On the Senate side, MN is too close to call with Franken slightly ahead, GA may be too close to call as above (either Republican Chambliss will retain his seat or, most likely, there will be a runoff), OR is too close to call, and, unbelievably, Alaska is too close to call. Electoral-vote reports that a Stevens win in Alaska would probably result in him being expelled from the Senate, followed by an election between current candidate Mark Begich (D) and Sarah Palin, which Palin would win in a landslide.
Also, it appears that John Murtha and Michele Bachmann will be re-elected.
Oh, and PS - HELL YES!!!
UPDATE2: With 92% reporting, LA Times shows banning gay marriage is winning in California. And you know what - if you want to support it, that's one thing. But if you're really this excited about it, you just suck.
UPDATE: Al Franken has lost his race in MN, but per state law, the 600-vote difference kicks in an automatic recount.
As it stands, Obama (obviously) has won. Indiana and Montana were called late last night/early this morning for Obama and McCain respectively. North Carolina is too close to call with 99% reporting. Not to be outdone, Missouri is too close to call with 100% reporting. Finally, there may be indications that Georgia has been called too early, and Nate mentioned that the total vote level is much lower than expected, so there may be something like early votes left to count.
On the Senate side, MN is too close to call with Franken slightly ahead, GA may be too close to call as above (either Republican Chambliss will retain his seat or, most likely, there will be a runoff), OR is too close to call, and, unbelievably, Alaska is too close to call. Electoral-vote reports that a Stevens win in Alaska would probably result in him being expelled from the Senate, followed by an election between current candidate Mark Begich (D) and Sarah Palin, which Palin would win in a landslide.
Also, it appears that John Murtha and Michele Bachmann will be re-elected.
Oh, and PS - HELL YES!!!
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, House Version
Doing the House races sucks because there is so little data. Many races rated by some sites as tossups didn't even have a single poll, and a very large number only had polls commissioned by one of the candidates, so there was very poor data to go on.
Nonetheless, here are my best projections (the second one is the number of state delegations controlled by each party - more relevant when an electoral tie was feasible)
And I'm sorry for the most ungodly long table ever, but here you go. A few races worth watching are AK-AL, where Don Young might be kicked out of the House for the first time since 1973 for, believe it or not, being corrupt. Also, MN-06 is Michele Bachmann's district; she's been mentioned here before. Florida has many hotly contested races. PA-12 is the district where Paul Murtha called his western Pennsylvania constituents racists - his 34 year career may come to an end. WY-AL is also a very close race.
Nonetheless, here are my best projections (the second one is the number of state delegations controlled by each party - more relevant when an electoral tie was feasible)
And I'm sorry for the most ungodly long table ever, but here you go. A few races worth watching are AK-AL, where Don Young might be kicked out of the House for the first time since 1973 for, believe it or not, being corrupt. Also, MN-06 is Michele Bachmann's district; she's been mentioned here before. Florida has many hotly contested races. PA-12 is the district where Paul Murtha called his western Pennsylvania constituents racists - his 34 year career may come to an end. WY-AL is also a very close race.
| District | Projection |
|---|---|
| AL1 | Safe Rep |
| AL2 | Weak Rep |
| AL3 | Safe Rep |
| AL4 | Safe Rep |
| AL5 | Safe Dem |
| AL6 | Safe Rep |
| AL7 | Safe Dem |
| AK1 | Safe Dem |
| AZ1 | Strong Dem |
| AZ2 | Safe Rep |
| AZ3 | Safe Rep |
| AZ4 | Safe Dem |
| AZ5 | Strong Dem |
| AZ6 | Safe Rep |
| AZ7 | Safe Dem |
| AZ8 | Strong Dem |
| AR1 | Safe Dem |
| AR2 | Safe Dem |
| AR3 | Safe Rep |
| AR4 | Safe Dem |
| CA1 | Safe Dem |
| CA2 | Safe Rep |
| CA3 | Safe Rep |
| CA4 | Strong Dem |
| CA5 | Safe Dem |
| CA6 | Safe Dem |
| CA7 | Safe Dem |
| CA8 | Safe Dem |
| CA9 | Safe Dem |
| CA10 | Safe Dem |
| CA11 | Safe Dem |
| CA12 | Safe Dem |
| CA13 | Safe Dem |
| CA14 | Safe Dem |
| CA15 | Safe Dem |
| CA16 | Safe Dem |
| CA17 | Safe Dem |
| CA18 | Safe Dem |
| CA19 | Safe Rep |
| CA20 | Safe Dem |
| CA21 | Safe Rep |
| CA22 | Safe Rep |
| CA23 | Safe Dem |
| CA24 | Safe Rep |
| CA25 | Safe Rep |
| CA26 | Safe Rep |
| CA27 | Safe Dem |
| CA28 | Safe Dem |
| CA29 | Safe Dem |
| CA30 | Safe Dem |
| CA31 | Safe Dem |
| CA32 | Safe Dem |
| CA33 | Safe Dem |
| CA34 | Safe Dem |
| CA35 | Safe Dem |
| CA36 | Safe Dem |
| CA37 | Safe Dem |
| CA38 | Safe Dem |
| CA39 | Safe Dem |
| CA40 | Safe Rep |
| CA41 | Safe Rep |
| CA42 | Safe Rep |
| CA43 | Safe Dem |
| CA44 | Safe Rep |
| CA45 | Safe Rep |
| CA46 | Safe Rep |
| CA47 | Safe Dem |
| CA48 | Safe Rep |
| CA49 | Safe Rep |
| CA50 | Safe Rep |
| CA51 | Safe Dem |
| CA52 | Safe Rep |
| CA53 | Safe Dem |
| CO1 | Safe Dem |
| CO2 | Safe Dem |
| CO3 | Safe Dem |
| CO4 | Safe Dem |
| CO5 | Safe Rep |
| CO6 | Safe Rep |
| CO7 | Safe Dem |
| CT1 | Safe Dem |
| CT2 | Safe Dem |
| CT3 | Safe Dem |
| CT4 | Toss Up |
| CT5 | Weak Dem |
| DE1 | Safe Rep |
| FL1 | Safe Rep |
| FL2 | Safe Dem |
| FL3 | Safe Dem |
| FL4 | Safe Rep |
| FL5 | Safe Rep |
| FL6 | Safe Rep |
| FL7 | Safe Rep |
| FL8 | Weak Dem |
| FL9 | Safe Rep |
| FL10 | Safe Rep |
| FL11 | Safe Dem |
| FL12 | Safe Rep |
| FL13 | Safe Rep |
| FL14 | Safe Rep |
| FL15 | Strong Rep |
| FL16 | Safe Rep |
| FL17 | Safe Dem |
| FL18 | Safe Rep |
| FL19 | Safe Dem |
| FL20 | Safe Dem |
| FL21 | Toss Up |
| FL22 | Strong Dem |
| FL23 | Safe Dem |
| FL24 | Strong Dem |
| FL25 | Strong Rep |
| GA1 | Safe Rep |
| GA2 | Safe Dem |
| GA3 | Safe Rep |
| GA4 | Safe Dem |
| GA5 | Safe Dem |
| GA6 | Safe Rep |
| GA7 | Safe Rep |
| GA8 | Weak Dem |
| GA9 | Safe Rep |
| GA10 | Safe Rep |
| GA11 | Safe Rep |
| GA12 | Strong Dem |
| GA13 | Safe Dem |
| HI1 | Safe Dem |
| HI2 | Safe Dem |
| ID1 | Weak Dem |
| ID2 | Safe Rep |
| IL1 | Safe Dem |
| IL2 | Safe Dem |
| IL3 | Safe Dem |
| IL4 | Safe Dem |
| IL5 | Safe Dem |
| IL6 | Safe Rep |
| IL7 | Safe Dem |
| IL8 | Strong Dem |
| IL9 | Safe Dem |
| IL10 | Strong Dem |
| IL11 | Safe Dem |
| IL12 | Safe Dem |
| IL13 | Safe Rep |
| IL14 | Weak Dem |
| IL15 | Safe Rep |
| IL16 | Safe Rep |
| IL17 | Safe Dem |
| IL18 | Safe Rep |
| IL19 | Safe Rep |
| IN1 | Safe Dem |
| IN2 | Safe Dem |
| IN3 | Weak Rep |
| IN4 | Safe Rep |
| IN5 | Safe Rep |
| IN6 | Safe Rep |
| IN7 | Safe Dem |
| IN8 | Strong Dem |
| IN9 | Safe Dem |
| IA1 | Safe Dem |
| IA2 | Safe Dem |
| IA3 | Safe Dem |
| IA4 | Strong Rep |
| IA5 | Safe Rep |
| KS1 | Safe Rep |
| KS2 | Safe Dem |
| KS3 | Safe Dem |
| KS4 | Safe Rep |
| KY1 | Safe Rep |
| KY2 | Safe Rep |
| KY3 | Safe Dem |
| KY4 | Safe Rep |
| KY5 | Safe Rep |
| KY6 | Safe Dem |
| LA1 | Safe Rep |
| LA2 | Safe Dem |
| LA3 | Safe Dem |
| LA4 | Strong Rep |
| LA5 | Safe Rep |
| LA6 | Safe Dem |
| LA7 | Strong Rep |
| ME1 | Safe Dem |
| ME2 | Safe Dem |
| MD1 | Weak Rep |
| MD2 | Safe Dem |
| MD3 | Safe Dem |
| MD4 | Safe Dem |
| MD5 | Safe Dem |
| MD6 | Safe Rep |
| MD7 | Safe Dem |
| MD8 | Safe Dem |
| MA1 | Safe Dem |
| MA2 | Safe Dem |
| MA3 | Safe Dem |
| MA4 | Safe Dem |
| MA5 | Safe Dem |
| MA6 | Safe Dem |
| MA7 | Safe Dem |
| MA8 | Safe Dem |
| MA9 | Safe Dem |
| MA10 | Safe Dem |
| MI1 | Safe Dem |
| MI2 | Safe Rep |
| MI3 | Safe Rep |
| MI4 | Safe Rep |
| MI5 | Safe Dem |
| MI6 | Safe Rep |
| MI7 | Weak Dem |
| MI8 | Safe Rep |
| MI9 | Strong Dem |
| MI10 | Safe Rep |
| MI11 | Safe Rep |
| MI12 | Safe Dem |
| MI13 | Safe Dem |
| MI14 | Safe Dem |
| MI15 | Safe Dem |
| MN1 | Safe Dem |
| MN2 | Strong Rep |
| MN3 | Toss Up |
| MN4 | Safe Dem |
| MN5 | Safe Dem |
| MN6 | Toss Up |
| MN7 | Safe Dem |
| MN8 | Safe Dem |
| MS1 | Safe Dem |
| MS2 | Safe Dem |
| MS3 | Safe Rep |
| MS4 | Safe Dem |
| MO1 | Safe Dem |
| MO2 | Safe Rep |
| MO3 | Safe Dem |
| MO4 | Safe Dem |
| MO5 | Safe Dem |
| MO6 | Safe Rep |
| MO7 | Safe Rep |
| MO8 | Safe Rep |
| MO9 | Strong Rep |
| MT1 | Safe Rep |
| NE1 | Safe Rep |
| NE2 | Safe Rep |
| NE3 | Safe Rep |
| NV1 | Safe Dem |
| NV2 | Safe Rep |
| NV3 | Toss Up |
| NH1 | Strong Dem |
| NH2 | Safe Dem |
| NJ1 | Safe Dem |
| NJ2 | Safe Rep |
| NJ3 | Toss Up |
| NJ4 | Safe Rep |
| NJ5 | Safe Rep |
| NJ6 | Safe Dem |
| NJ7 | Weak Dem |
| NJ8 | Safe Dem |
| NJ9 | Safe Dem |
| NJ10 | Safe Dem |
| NJ11 | Safe Rep |
| NJ12 | Safe Dem |
| NJ13 | Safe Dem |
| NM1 | Weak Dem |
| NM2 | Strong Dem |
| NM3 | Safe Dem |
| NY1 | Safe Dem |
| NY2 | Safe Dem |
| NY3 | Safe Rep |
| NY4 | Safe Dem |
| NY5 | Safe Dem |
| NY6 | Safe Dem |
| NY7 | Safe Dem |
| NY8 | Safe Dem |
| NY9 | Safe Dem |
| NY10 | Safe Dem |
| NY11 | Safe Dem |
| NY12 | Safe Dem |
| NY13 | Safe Dem |
| NY14 | Safe Dem |
| NY15 | Safe Dem |
| NY16 | Safe Dem |
| NY17 | Safe Dem |
| NY18 | Safe Dem |
| NY19 | Strong Dem |
| NY20 | Strong Dem |
| NY21 | Safe Dem |
| NY22 | Safe Dem |
| NY23 | Safe Rep |
| NY24 | Strong Dem |
| NY25 | Toss Up |
| NY26 | Safe Rep |
| NY27 | Safe Dem |
| NY28 | Safe Dem |
| NY29 | Safe Dem |
| NC1 | Safe Dem |
| NC2 | Safe Dem |
| NC3 | Safe Rep |
| NC4 | Safe Dem |
| NC5 | Safe Rep |
| NC6 | Safe Rep |
| NC7 | Safe Dem |
| NC8 | Weak Dem |
| NC9 | Safe Rep |
| NC10 | Safe Rep |
| NC11 | Safe Dem |
| NC12 | Safe Dem |
| NC13 | Safe Dem |
| ND1 | Safe Dem |
| OH1 | Toss Up |
| OH2 | Safe Rep |
| OH3 | Safe Rep |
| OH4 | Safe Rep |
| OH5 | Safe Rep |
| OH6 | Safe Dem |
| OH7 | Strong Rep |
| OH8 | Safe Rep |
| OH9 | Safe Dem |
| OH10 | Safe Dem |
| OH11 | Safe Dem |
| OH12 | Safe Rep |
| OH13 | Safe Dem |
| OH14 | Strong Rep |
| OH15 | Safe Dem |
| OH16 | Safe Dem |
| OH17 | Safe Dem |
| OH18 | Strong Dem |
| OK1 | Safe Rep |
| OK2 | Safe Dem |
| OK3 | Safe Rep |
| OK4 | Safe Rep |
| OK5 | Safe Rep |
| OR1 | Safe Dem |
| OR2 | Safe Rep |
| OR3 | Safe Dem |
| OR4 | Safe Dem |
| OR5 | Safe Dem |
| PA1 | Safe Dem |
| PA2 | Safe Dem |
| PA3 | Strong Dem |
| PA4 | Safe Dem |
| PA5 | Safe Rep |
| PA6 | Safe Rep |
| PA7 | Safe Dem |
| PA8 | Strong Dem |
| PA9 | Safe Rep |
| PA10 | Safe Dem |
| PA11 | Strong Rep |
| PA12 | Toss Up |
| PA13 | Safe Dem |
| PA14 | Safe Dem |
| PA15 | Strong Rep |
| PA16 | Safe Rep |
| PA17 | Safe Dem |
| PA18 | Strong Rep |
| PA19 | Safe Rep |
| RI1 | Safe Dem |
| RI2 | Safe Dem |
| SC1 | Safe Rep |
| SC2 | Safe Rep |
| SC3 | Safe Rep |
| SC4 | Safe Rep |
| SC5 | Safe Dem |
| SC6 | Safe Dem |
| SD1 | Safe Dem |
| TN1 | Safe Rep |
| TN2 | Safe Rep |
| TN3 | Safe Rep |
| TN4 | Safe Dem |
| TN5 | Safe Dem |
| TN6 | Safe Dem |
| TN7 | Safe Rep |
| TN8 | Safe Dem |
| TN9 | Safe Dem |
| TX1 | Safe Rep |
| TX2 | Safe Rep |
| TX3 | Safe Rep |
| TX4 | Safe Rep |
| TX5 | Safe Rep |
| TX6 | Safe Rep |
| TX7 | Safe Rep |
| TX8 | Safe Rep |
| TX9 | Safe Dem |
| TX10 | Strong Rep |
| TX11 | Safe Rep |
| TX12 | Safe Rep |
| TX13 | Safe Rep |
| TX14 | Safe Rep |
| TX15 | Safe Dem |
| TX16 | Safe Dem |
| TX17 | Safe Dem |
| TX18 | Safe Dem |
| TX19 | Safe Rep |
| TX20 | Safe Dem |
| TX21 | Safe Rep |
| TX22 | Safe Rep |
| TX23 | Strong Dem |
| TX24 | Safe Rep |
| TX25 | Safe Dem |
| TX26 | Safe Rep |
| TX27 | Safe Dem |
| TX28 | Safe Dem |
| TX29 | Safe Dem |
| TX30 | Safe Dem |
| TX31 | Safe Rep |
| TX32 | Safe Rep |
| UT1 | Safe Rep |
| UT2 | Safe Dem |
| UT3 | Safe Rep |
| VT1 | Safe Dem |
| VA1 | Safe Rep |
| VA2 | Safe Rep |
| VA3 | Safe Dem |
| VA4 | Safe Rep |
| VA5 | Safe Rep |
| VA6 | Safe Rep |
| VA7 | Safe Rep |
| VA8 | Safe Dem |
| VA9 | Safe Dem |
| VA10 | Weak Rep |
| VA11 | Safe Dem |
| WA1 | Safe Dem |
| WA2 | Safe Dem |
| WA3 | Safe Dem |
| WA4 | Safe Rep |
| WA5 | Safe Rep |
| WA6 | Safe Dem |
| WA7 | Safe Dem |
| WA8 | Toss Up |
| WA9 | Safe Dem |
| WV1 | Safe Dem |
| WV2 | Safe Rep |
| WV3 | Safe Dem |
| WI1 | Safe Rep |
| WI2 | Safe Dem |
| WI3 | Safe Dem |
| WI4 | Safe Dem |
| WI5 | Safe Rep |
| WI6 | Safe Rep |
| WI7 | Safe Dem |
| WI8 | Safe Dem |
| WY1 | Weak Rep |
Election Projection, Senate Version
The Senate races are finally starting to behave themselves, as there is now relatively little variance in how the next Senate could look.
Astoundingly, the closest the Democrats have come to losing a single Senate seat is Mary Landrieu in LA, whose lead is "only" 13.1 points (and those aren't all blue states on the top half either). They are picking up Virginia and New Mexico in landslides (VA Dem candidate Mark Warner gave that ever-so-inspiring keynote address about cellphone towers). Colorado and New Hampshire have also become safe, and it looks like Uncle Ted has run out of luck in Alaska.
In North Carolina, Bob Dole's wife no longer has a career after running "my opponent is an athiest" ads, and the race in Oregon is closing out as well.
Counting North Carolina and Oregon brings the Dems to 58 seats, and if I put my money on it, I'd say that's where they'll land. A good hedged bet is that with a 50% chance in MN and a 20% chance in Georgia, the Democrats have a 65% chance of picking up at least one of those seats. The polls are constantly back-and-forth in MN, but Al Franken has trailed the latest polls by SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, and Research 2000, all reputable and prolific pollsters. The Georgia race could flip on turnout, but if Jim Martin can't win a majority (which he can't) then it goes to runoff. Both sides will flood the race with money, but without the Obama turnout driving voters to the polls, I see little hope for picking up Georgia.
Final Senate Tally
Democrats and Liebermans: 58
Republicans: 42
And just in case you're worried about Lieberman, put it one of two ways: either you believe he really is a moderate Democrat who just supports the war and McCain, or you believe he is merely self-serving based on what gives him the best chance at power. Either way, he'll wear the Blue jersey next season.
Astoundingly, the closest the Democrats have come to losing a single Senate seat is Mary Landrieu in LA, whose lead is "only" 13.1 points (and those aren't all blue states on the top half either). They are picking up Virginia and New Mexico in landslides (VA Dem candidate Mark Warner gave that ever-so-inspiring keynote address about cellphone towers). Colorado and New Hampshire have also become safe, and it looks like Uncle Ted has run out of luck in Alaska.
In North Carolina, Bob Dole's wife no longer has a career after running "my opponent is an athiest" ads, and the race in Oregon is closing out as well.
Counting North Carolina and Oregon brings the Dems to 58 seats, and if I put my money on it, I'd say that's where they'll land. A good hedged bet is that with a 50% chance in MN and a 20% chance in Georgia, the Democrats have a 65% chance of picking up at least one of those seats. The polls are constantly back-and-forth in MN, but Al Franken has trailed the latest polls by SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, and Research 2000, all reputable and prolific pollsters. The Georgia race could flip on turnout, but if Jim Martin can't win a majority (which he can't) then it goes to runoff. Both sides will flood the race with money, but without the Obama turnout driving voters to the polls, I see little hope for picking up Georgia.
Final Senate Tally
Democrats and Liebermans: 58
Republicans: 42
And just in case you're worried about Lieberman, put it one of two ways: either you believe he really is a moderate Democrat who just supports the war and McCain, or you believe he is merely self-serving based on what gives him the best chance at power. Either way, he'll wear the Blue jersey next season.
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.
Updates are coming
I promise a full in-depth prediction thread, but I just got here, I'm three days behind in poll logging, and I might even have work to do. Noon eastern at the earliest.
experiences at the ballot box
So I know I had to wait in line for about 50 minutes this morning, but then my voting went smoothly. Waiting in line was quite enjoyable- it was clear the majority was in favor of Obama. Granted, I was voting in Bed-Sty and was one of maybe 4 other non-African Americans in the line. I learned that when the voting opened this morning, the line did indeed wrap around the block, though it was shorter upon my arrival.
How have your experiences been? Fortunately the voting machine did not break one person ahead of me like it did for the primaries.
I was very excited afterward; I paused to appreciate the magnitude of what I had just done. A stranger on the subway platform seemed to identify that we were having similar feelings and struck up a friendly conversation about the momentous occasion. How unusual!
Obama announced he would run on February 10, 2007. That's 19 months of campaigning. Everyone should pause as they cast their ballot- it's the end of a long journey, and as we are all glued to 538 or RCP or CNN throughout the day, let's hope it's the real beginning of...change we can believe in.
How have your experiences been? Fortunately the voting machine did not break one person ahead of me like it did for the primaries.
I was very excited afterward; I paused to appreciate the magnitude of what I had just done. A stranger on the subway platform seemed to identify that we were having similar feelings and struck up a friendly conversation about the momentous occasion. How unusual!
Obama announced he would run on February 10, 2007. That's 19 months of campaigning. Everyone should pause as they cast their ballot- it's the end of a long journey, and as we are all glued to 538 or RCP or CNN throughout the day, let's hope it's the real beginning of...change we can believe in.
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"
Pundit Predictions
via HuffPo:
Nate Silver
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 347 McCain 191
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 258 Democrats 177 Republicans
I could pick apart quite a few of these, but my favorite is probably Alex Castellanos, who would run with Geraldo on the mustache ticket, and thinks that Obama will win Florida and lose Ohio. Either is possible, but no way both of those things happen (i.e., Ohio is bluer than Florida right now, so if Florida goes blue, so would Ohio. Plus I already called Ohio the other day). Bonus: He calls Mary Landrieu's LA Senate seat for the Republicans, which is absolutely ridiculous in and of itself (Nate puts her at 98%) but he adds for fun that Georgia will go to the Democrats. I'm dead serious - anyone who is that bad at his job should be relieved of it.
Nate Silver
Winner: Obama
Electoral College: Obama 347 McCain 191
Senate Seats: 57 Democrats 41 Republicans
House Seats: 258 Democrats 177 Republicans
I could pick apart quite a few of these, but my favorite is probably Alex Castellanos, who would run with Geraldo on the mustache ticket, and thinks that Obama will win Florida and lose Ohio. Either is possible, but no way both of those things happen (i.e., Ohio is bluer than Florida right now, so if Florida goes blue, so would Ohio. Plus I already called Ohio the other day). Bonus: He calls Mary Landrieu's LA Senate seat for the Republicans, which is absolutely ridiculous in and of itself (Nate puts her at 98%) but he adds for fun that Georgia will go to the Democrats. I'm dead serious - anyone who is that bad at his job should be relieved of it.
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
Perhaps the best description of a sunk cost ever
From Bill Simmons' latest article:
What is a sunk cost? In financial terms, it's a lost cause -- you're paying for something that has lost its value to you. Let's say I spent $200 on one of those beautiful, 6-foot-high, glass-blown water bongs and named it Barack Obonga. And let's say I smoked a little too much of the special hydro weed they give to cancer patients, decided someone was watching me through my front window, ran outside in my underwear with a baseball bat, and eventually spent the next two hours sitting in a tree waiting for the imaginary guy to come back before my neighbors called the police. And let's say the whole experience made me say, "You know what? I need to quit smoking pot, it's making me a little crazy." Maybe I'd try to sell the bong on Craigslist to no avail, and none of my friends would take it because there's nothing grosser than owning someone else's bong. At that specific point, Barack Obonga would become a sunk cost; that money is out the window. It's gone. I need to accept this fact and move on.
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:
Election day weather
In hopes of finding even more reasons to be excited for Tuesday night/Wednesday morning I decided to check the national weather forecast for Tuesday. Here is the Weather Underground map for mid-day Tuesday:
And here is the hilariously useless and patriotic map from AccuWeather:
In the end it seems as if weather won't be too much of a factor in terms of its impact on voter turnout. On the east coast there is not too much in the way of precipitation, but perhaps the Georgia senate race and the southernmost part of North Carolina will see unexpected voter patterns. Assuming Chris' predictions come true (especially Ohio) the weather on the west coast may be irrelevant, with its impact overwhelmed by the impact of the returns from the east coast.
So as it turns out this post says nothing. At least we now know that Earth has one more layer than previously known: a gigantic American flag that stretches north to south from Canada to Mexico and east to west from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Finally we know the true boundaries of manifest destiny. Thank you, AccuWeather.
And here is the hilariously useless and patriotic map from AccuWeather:
In the end it seems as if weather won't be too much of a factor in terms of its impact on voter turnout. On the east coast there is not too much in the way of precipitation, but perhaps the Georgia senate race and the southernmost part of North Carolina will see unexpected voter patterns. Assuming Chris' predictions come true (especially Ohio) the weather on the west coast may be irrelevant, with its impact overwhelmed by the impact of the returns from the east coast.
So as it turns out this post says nothing. At least we now know that Earth has one more layer than previously known: a gigantic American flag that stretches north to south from Canada to Mexico and east to west from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Finally we know the true boundaries of manifest destiny. Thank you, AccuWeather.
I Call Ohio for Obama
This is a tough call. Ohio's a big prize - you don't want to blow that one.
In many ways this race seems close. It's currently Obama 48.9, McCain 44.8. Obama slightly underperformed Nate's model in the primaries.
But here's why I called it. I currently project Obama to win by 3.75 pts. That's a lot of ground to make up, and it's not like it's only a statistical fluke - it represents a weighted average of 83 polls, including 30 in October. What really did it for me was recent polling.
Obama hasn't trailed in a single non-partisan poll (there have been 14) since October 19. His latest leads are 4, 4, 9, 4, 7, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 10. It's tough to argue with those numbers, and tough for McCain to overcome them.
Obama will now be working from a core of 311 EVs on election night.
In many ways this race seems close. It's currently Obama 48.9, McCain 44.8. Obama slightly underperformed Nate's model in the primaries.
But here's why I called it. I currently project Obama to win by 3.75 pts. That's a lot of ground to make up, and it's not like it's only a statistical fluke - it represents a weighted average of 83 polls, including 30 in October. What really did it for me was recent polling.
Obama hasn't trailed in a single non-partisan poll (there have been 14) since October 19. His latest leads are 4, 4, 9, 4, 7, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 10. It's tough to argue with those numbers, and tough for McCain to overcome them.
Obama will now be working from a core of 311 EVs on election night.
"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.
Poll Closing Times
Note that the first polls close in Indiana at 6:00 PM eastern. If Obama wins Indiana you can call it right there. Polls close an hour later in Florida, Virginia, and (I guess) Georgia, which also would mean Grandpa McCain can go to bed early.
my weakness for cute kids is spilling over into this blog...
...but aaaaaw.
yeah, I'm done now, I promise.
The fourth paragraph is my favorite...
...finally, someone's gotten specific about this whole "change" thing...
my first time quoting a Whig...
"Passion and prejudice properly aroused and directed...do about as well as principle and reason in a party contest."
- Thomas Elder, Whig party politician, 1840
- Thomas Elder, Whig party politician, 1840
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 30, 2008
Also unrelated to most things...
But I know of at least 2 people who read this blog and appreciate Tracy Morgan's antics, so I recommend this NYT spotlight article.
And because it's the season, I must add Werewolf Bar Mitzvah for those who love it already, or those who have never seen it.
And because it's the season, I must add Werewolf Bar Mitzvah for those who love it already, or those who have never seen it.
A little advice?
This is unrelated to, well, everything, but...
How do you guys cope when you feel there's a very real danger of you falling asleep at your desk?
How do you guys cope when you feel there's a very real danger of you falling asleep at your desk?
A very strange book
I enjoyed reading these excerpts of Euonia, a new book in which each chapter contains only one of the vowels (though in each chapter the chosen vowel is used many times).
October 29, 2008
EV Report, 10/29/08
Not much to report, but I'll be out of the office Thursday and Monday, leaving only today, Friday, and Election Day for me to chip in the ol' two cents.
I added a column which is Obama's proportion in the weighted signs test. Again, my signs test is just how many polls each candidate has led in, straight up. The weighted signs test weights each poll by pollster and date, so newer better polls count more. It actually passes a common sense test for the probability of an Obama victory in nearly all states.
As reported earlier, NV finally meandered over to the safe column. Missouri and North Carolina definitely lean Obama but aren't locked up. And I still hate you Indiana.
Actually, the third column may not have been there earlier. That's the sum of the poll weights in a state. The higher the number, the higher the level of good, recent polling in the state.
I added a column which is Obama's proportion in the weighted signs test. Again, my signs test is just how many polls each candidate has led in, straight up. The weighted signs test weights each poll by pollster and date, so newer better polls count more. It actually passes a common sense test for the probability of an Obama victory in nearly all states.
As reported earlier, NV finally meandered over to the safe column. Missouri and North Carolina definitely lean Obama but aren't locked up. And I still hate you Indiana.
Actually, the third column may not have been there earlier. That's the sum of the poll weights in a state. The higher the number, the higher the level of good, recent polling in the state.
Really, Mississippi?
Just stumbled upon (not StumbleUpon-ed) this tidbit of electoral history:
1948 Presidential Election
National:
Harry S Truman (Dem) - 24,179,347 - 49.6%
Thomas E. Dewey (Rep) - 21,991,292 - 45.1%
Strom Thurmond (Dixie) - 1,175,930 - 2.4%
Mississippi:
Harry S Truman - 19,384 - 10.1%
Thomas E. Dewey - 5,043 - 2.6%
Strom Thurmond - 167,538 - 87.2%
1948 Presidential Election
National:
Harry S Truman (Dem) - 24,179,347 - 49.6%
Thomas E. Dewey (Rep) - 21,991,292 - 45.1%
Strom Thurmond (Dixie) - 1,175,930 - 2.4%
Mississippi:
Harry S Truman - 19,384 - 10.1%
Thomas E. Dewey - 5,043 - 2.6%
Strom Thurmond - 167,538 - 87.2%
Notes, Votes, and Quotes
I really enjoyed scanning through this Congressional Quarterly summary of the positions of McCain and Obama.
When he thought it could get no worse
I moved Nevada into the Safe column today, on the basis of Obama being up by an average of 7 pts in the five polls from the last week.
Now, normally a state with only 5 EVs and claims to fame like "Burning Man" and "Britney Spears' other wedding" doesn't top the list of newsmakers, but here's the thing.
I'm not ready to include Nevada in the core of 286, but adding Nevada to it gives you 291 safe EVs. Which means that even if John McCain's hail mary for Pennsylvania's 21 EVs works, he would still only reduce Obama to 270 EVs.
Five days ago I stated that if I were a McCain supporter, the news that day would be what made me give up. Today, if I were on McCain's staff, this is the news that would make me give up.
PS - It's still 364-163 with ever-so-stubborn Indiana still as a coin-flip tossup, where's it's been all year. Please Indiana, just pick a side.
Now, normally a state with only 5 EVs and claims to fame like "Burning Man" and "Britney Spears' other wedding" doesn't top the list of newsmakers, but here's the thing.
I'm not ready to include Nevada in the core of 286, but adding Nevada to it gives you 291 safe EVs. Which means that even if John McCain's hail mary for Pennsylvania's 21 EVs works, he would still only reduce Obama to 270 EVs.
Five days ago I stated that if I were a McCain supporter, the news that day would be what made me give up. Today, if I were on McCain's staff, this is the news that would make me give up.
PS - It's still 364-163 with ever-so-stubborn Indiana still as a coin-flip tossup, where's it's been all year. Please Indiana, just pick a side.
Trouble in the land of peaches?
Georgia is still definitely on the McCain side of the ledger, but he can't be too excited when he sees stuff like this.
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.
Let Me Be Clearer (Updated)
Earlier (over on the right) I updated my Senate projections, claiming that Democrats' easiest road to 60 seats would run through tough races in either GA, KY, or MS. Well, I was wrong.
The easiest way to 60 seats is actually to have Barack Obama appoint Republican senators from states with Democratic governors to his cabinet. He gets to claim bipartisanship, they actually get to do something other than filibuster, and Democrats gain a Senate seat.
UPDATE: Two polls today, one from a reputable pollster, show Wicker (R) up by 11 and 13 in Mississippi. Oh, well.
The easiest way to 60 seats is actually to have Barack Obama appoint Republican senators from states with Democratic governors to his cabinet. He gets to claim bipartisanship, they actually get to do something other than filibuster, and Democrats gain a Senate seat.
UPDATE: Two polls today, one from a reputable pollster, show Wicker (R) up by 11 and 13 in Mississippi. Oh, well.
I'm Sure You've Seen Some Variant Of This
... but it's still funny.
Dear Red States,
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includesCalifornia , Hawaii , Oregon , Washington , Minnesota , Wisconsin Michigan , Illinois Florida Ohio America
To sum up briefly: You getTexas , Oklahoma America Alabama
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms, and the highest concentration of pregnant unwed teenagers. Please be aware that the U.A. will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back fromIraq Iraq
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent ofAmerica U.S. Stanford , Cal U.S. Bob Jones University Georgia Hollywood and Yosemite , thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy Redies believe you are people with higher morals then we Bluies..
I can't really discuss the rest of the email, but it had to with certain types of vegetation, and how the red states will now have to revert to Mexico for their supply.
Dear Red States,
We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes
To sum up briefly: You get
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms, and the highest concentration of pregnant unwed teenagers. Please be aware that the U.A. will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy Redies believe you are people with higher morals then we Bluies..
I can't really discuss the rest of the email, but it had to with certain types of vegetation, and how the red states will now have to revert to Mexico for their supply.
Intrade: Make Money on Reason over Emotion
That Barack Obama is trading so low on Intrade befuddles me. Yes, befuddles.
Now, much has been written about the fallability of prediction markets so I won't even go there. But here's my guess: if you really, truly, deeply want John McCain to win this election, it's got to be pretty tough to put your money down against him. You trick yourself. The Bradley Effect is going to make a comeback, you say. Undecideds have broken strongly against Obama before, like in the New Hampshire primary, you convince yourself. The last two times Virginia went blue were for LBJ and Harry Truman; there's no way it'll flip this year you tell yourself. (By the way, I'm not immune to this. In 2004 there were three states I couldn't decide how to call - Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio. I was 48 for 48 by midnight on election night. The next morning I was 48 for 51, because I just couldn't get myself to believe that they'd actually pull the lever for Bush, and I incorrectly called all three for Kerry.)
But look at the facts. Let's take Virginia. Barack Obama has led every poll in October - a streak of 18 consecutive. I project his lead to be nearly 7 pts. Nate Silver says 96% chance Obama wins it. Even the networks have moved the Old Dominion out of the tossup section. Yet you can still buy an Obama contract - today - for $82 (provided you're not American).
Hell, you can still buy a Pennsylvania contract for 86. 86! McCain hasn't led a poll in Pennsylvania since April! April for God's sake. Stick $86 in now, get $100 in a week (we'll call it $99 after fees to be conservative) and you've earned an effective annual return of 151,000%. On Virginia - 1,800,000%. This is ridiculous. I can't play on Intrade because I'm an American, but if I only could ...
As an aside I just noticed that Intrade now has options contracts? Holy cow that's cool. I gotta find a way to get around these regulations.
Now, much has been written about the fallability of prediction markets so I won't even go there. But here's my guess: if you really, truly, deeply want John McCain to win this election, it's got to be pretty tough to put your money down against him. You trick yourself. The Bradley Effect is going to make a comeback, you say. Undecideds have broken strongly against Obama before, like in the New Hampshire primary, you convince yourself. The last two times Virginia went blue were for LBJ and Harry Truman; there's no way it'll flip this year you tell yourself. (By the way, I'm not immune to this. In 2004 there were three states I couldn't decide how to call - Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio. I was 48 for 48 by midnight on election night. The next morning I was 48 for 51, because I just couldn't get myself to believe that they'd actually pull the lever for Bush, and I incorrectly called all three for Kerry.)
But look at the facts. Let's take Virginia. Barack Obama has led every poll in October - a streak of 18 consecutive. I project his lead to be nearly 7 pts. Nate Silver says 96% chance Obama wins it. Even the networks have moved the Old Dominion out of the tossup section. Yet you can still buy an Obama contract - today - for $82 (provided you're not American).
Hell, you can still buy a Pennsylvania contract for 86. 86! McCain hasn't led a poll in Pennsylvania since April! April for God's sake. Stick $86 in now, get $100 in a week (we'll call it $99 after fees to be conservative) and you've earned an effective annual return of 151,000%. On Virginia - 1,800,000%. This is ridiculous. I can't play on Intrade because I'm an American, but if I only could ...
As an aside I just noticed that Intrade now has options contracts? Holy cow that's cool. I gotta find a way to get around these regulations.
I love Tuesdays' Science Times.
I love academic/scholarly discussions about sex.
I enjoyed this quote: "“Is it that men are bragging about it and women are lying to everybody including themselves?” Dr. Fisher asked. “Men want to think women don’t cheat, and women want men to think they don’t cheat, and therefore the sexes have been playing a little psychological game with each other.”"
Not exactly a high brow scholarly discussion of sex, but an interesting read. The article notes we may be cheating more- whether physically or emotionally- because of the facility with which we can "communicate" today. It's funny- cell phones and email and chat supposedly inhibit sincere connections and relationships yet facilitate something like cheating, which can often be categorized as simply reaching out to forge a superficial relationship, often devoid of real emotion but nonetheless providing an intimate connection. The relationship between technology, communications/relations, and infidelity is indeed dynamic.
I love academic/scholarly discussions about sex.
I enjoyed this quote: "“Is it that men are bragging about it and women are lying to everybody including themselves?” Dr. Fisher asked. “Men want to think women don’t cheat, and women want men to think they don’t cheat, and therefore the sexes have been playing a little psychological game with each other.”"
Not exactly a high brow scholarly discussion of sex, but an interesting read. The article notes we may be cheating more- whether physically or emotionally- because of the facility with which we can "communicate" today. It's funny- cell phones and email and chat supposedly inhibit sincere connections and relationships yet facilitate something like cheating, which can often be categorized as simply reaching out to forge a superficial relationship, often devoid of real emotion but nonetheless providing an intimate connection. The relationship between technology, communications/relations, and infidelity is indeed dynamic.
October 27, 2008
The Economist.com's cool section
The economist host an online formal structured debate on some interesting topics. Link
Christopher Buckley goes 2-for-2
I always liked reading William Buckley even though I disagreed with him. I won't make the mistake of confusing the two, but so far I like Christopher Buckley as well. And here's his first two articles for the Daily Beast.
Sorry, Dad, I'm voting for Obama
Rush, you’re no William F. Buckley, Jr.
Sorry, Dad, I'm voting for Obama
Rush, you’re no William F. Buckley, Jr.
Darcy Burner for Congress, indeed
Darcy Burner (D) is trying to unseat two-term Congressman Dave Reichert in what is possibly the closest House race of the year. So there I am on TerraPass's website looking into getting my office to buy carbon offsets, and right there on their list of partners is "Darcy Burner for Congress," which has apparently offset 19 metric tons of carbon. Good job, Darcy!
General Update
I could have cleaned this up a little better, but oh well.
Click on the image for better viewing.
Click on the image for better viewing.
Public Service Announcement
If you have devices that automatically adjust for daylight savings time, make sure they haven't already adjusted this weekend and are set to adjust next weekend instead. I know we have one employee who was late this morning because of an auto-adjusting clock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
